Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL

Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message (2nd November) as relates to the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill be now considered.
That the Promoters of the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall he presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders he Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

West Midlands (Resources)

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has assessed the extent to which the formula for funding of the regional health authorities adequately reflects the needs of the West Midiands regional health authority.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the allocation of National Health Service resources for the west midlands.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the future funding of the West Midlands regional health authority.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The new regional allocation formula reflects the relative need for health services of west midlands residents by taking account of the size, age structure, and health of the region's population. I have received several letters about allocations to west midlands region, including a number from hon. Members and one from the chairman of the regional health authority.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's reply. Is he aware that there is considerable concern in the west midlands that the resource allocation does not reflect regional needs? Is he aware further that Herefordshire is one of the fastest growing areas in the region in terms both of population size and of age? Because of that, even now, the health authority is finding it difficult to sustain the level of service that the Government expect from it. Can we look forward to future resourcing which will properly and accurately reflect demographic trends and the full implications of patients from Wales going to Herefordshire for treatment?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is concern in the region at the moment. That concern stems largely from a debate that has arisen on the technical planning guidelines that we have given this year. I ask everybody in the west midlands to wait until allocations of funds are made to the west midlands, which will be after the Autumn Statement has been announced. I remind everyone in the west midlands that under this Government the allocation to the west midlands has increased dramatically. It is now up by 37 per cent. in real terms since we took power. That compares with a 30 per cent. increase to health authorities across the country.
Hereford has particular problems because of the age structure of its population and the other factors that my hon. Friend has described. The region will be expected to take them into account when making allocations to the district, just as we shall take all west midlands population; features into account when we make eventual allocations, to the region.

Mrs. Hicks: I acknowledge the welcome overall increases for the National Health Service in the forthcoming year, but will my right hon. and learned


Friend take on board the obvious anxiety of three west midlands hon. Members who are asking three of the first five questions today and who are naturally genuinely concerned about any talk of reductions? Obviously, from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, we do not have cause for concern. May I therefore take that message back to Wolverhampton health authority, which has done a splendid job in managing its resources, and may I tell it that its efforts will be rewarded and not penalised?

Mr. Clarke: It seems to me—I only guess—that three Conservative Members from the west midlands have acted promptly after a letter was sent to all west midlands Members by the chairman of the regional health authority. I commend to my hon. Friend a reply that I sent to the chairman of the health authority, pointing out that no cuts of any kind are proposed and also pointing out our excellent record in increasing resources to the west midlands. I am sure that when the regional chairman gets the eventual allocations he will seek to reflect my hon. Friend's concern by allocating further growth money to the Wolverhampton health authority.

Mr. Gill: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's answers. When he considers the allocation of funds, will he use his best offices to ensure that demographic and geographic factors in Shropshire, as opposed to other parts of the west midlands, are truly reflected? Will my right hon. and learned Friend care to consider for one moment that the allocation of funds generally has been more generous to health authorities in Wales, which adjoins my constituency?

Mr. Clarke: I certainly give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. Shropshire has certainly done well in recent years. It has a new district general hospital, which now gives the county two extremely good district general hospitals and, in addition, one of the best orthopaedic units in the country, at Oswestry. The district has done very well in the allocation of funds in recent years. The region was able to give an additional £7 million, or a 9·1 per cent, increase, to Shropshire in this year alone. That is a rise of 206 per cent, in cash terms, or 32 per cent, in real terms, since the Government took office. That does not include £0·75 million that the district received in waiting list initiative money. I am sure that when the allocations of cash are made this year when the results of the autumn spending round are announced, the region will make a proper allocation to Shropshire to reflect all the demographic features of that county.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent university of Leeds survey on health in north Staffordshire, which shows that 50 per cent, of men in Stoke-on-Trent die before they reach pensionable age and that in one part of my constituency the life expectancy for men is less than 62 years? How, therefore, can he justify re-weighting the mortality rates, which has led to the shift in resources of £56 million over the next three years from the west midlands to the rich south-east?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the study, which underlined the great need to improve the health status of the population of the Potteries. I suspect that historically the health status of people living in that industrial area has not been so good as that of the rest of the country. As I said in my first supplementary answer, since we came to power we have given a much bigger increase in funds to the west

midlands than to the rest of the country—and certainly greater than we have given to the south-east. Our new arrangements for distributing money are simpler than those that we had before. They reflect the comparative needs of the regions and still contemplate a comparative shift of resources away from London to other parts of the country.
However, whatever formula one comes up with, it is possible to make a case in favour of each and every one of the 190 districts in the country. The formula we are using is the fairest, taking account of all the competing health needs of the different districts.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State make it clear whether next year under his new formula he expects the west midlands to get more or less money than this year? Is he aware that the North Birmingham health authority, with the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield, is currently £500,000 overspent and faces having to close wards and beds and to cut services? What is the Secretary of State going to do about that?

Mr. Clarke: I expect the West Midlands regional health authority to get more money next year, as it has every year during the lifetime of this Government. The exact amount will become clear when we make the allocations to the regions after the Chancellor has announced the results of the Autumn Statement, which will be shortly. The West Midlands regional health authority has never had so much money at its disposal for the National Health Service as it has at the moment. It is greatly increasing its patient care and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's district health authority is treating more patients this year than it ever has in the history of the National Health Service. It is a weakness of the management of the Health Service that even when more money is poured into it it has mid-year crises because the management cannot match the expansion of services with the money—[Interruption.] The reason for reforming the service is to improve control over that money so that we can have steady and sustained growth instead of the checks to growth that the hon. Gentleman has just described.

Mr. George: If the Secretary of State is still talking to Sir James Ackers—I am not sure that he will be after the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intemperate letter of 24 October—will he guarantee to hon. Members representing Walsall that the final tranche of the £2·4 million to allow the new district general hospital to open on time will actually be made?

Mr. Clarke: Sir James Ackers is one of my oldest personal friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He is also one of the very best chairmen of regional health authorities in this country. It is an experience of life that when extremely good and competent people are running things there are sometimes fairly robust exchanges between them. My exchange corrected his letter, but he and I remain on excellent terms. When I next meet him I will take up with him the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked because I realise how important it is that we open this new and important facility at the earliest possible moment.

Dame Jill Knight: Could my right hon. and learned Friend shortly inform his great friend the chairman of the west midlands authority that when dealing with the new basket of money he should bear in mind that to both the public and to Conservative Members it is totally


unacceptable that women who have reason to suppose that they may have breast cancer should have to wait many months to be sure about it because of the shortage of money, or that a man who has kidney stones, when there is a lithotripter available, cannot have his condition alleviated because of lack of money? That point worries many of us.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has made strong representations recently to Sir James and to myself about proposed changes at the Birmingham women's hospital and she was able to ensure that no reduction of service was planned there. I am sure that Sir James is aware of the shortcomings of the service to which she has referred, and as we put more money into the West Midlands regional health authority, I trust that he and the region will ensure that the district health authorities are put in a position to tackle them.

Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I can help the Secretary of State in his difficulties with his Back Benchers. Why does he not tell them that their dissatisfaction with funding is evenly spread across the country? Did he see last week's survey by NAHA, the National Association of Health Authorities, which concluded that all health authorities face financial pressure and that nine out of 10 are having to make cash savings in this financial year? Does he recall describing last year's Autumn Statement, which left those health authorities in the red, as a "quite spectacular boost" in health spending? Is he really asking the House to believe that that spectacular boost was all frittered away by bad management? Or is the truth the fact that no health authority got the cash it needed to meet the real rate of inflation?

Mr. Clarke: That is quite absurd. The Health Service as a whole is spending more than £2 billion over and above what it was spending a year ago. That is an increase—taking a pessimistic view of inflation—of about 4 per cent. in real terms over and above inflation. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework and stop making wild assertions about the increase being below the level of inflation. The NAHA report is therefore against the background of the health authorities having more money to spend than they have ever had before, a quite spectacular rate of growth in their resources this year and every health authority throughout the country treating more patients this year than it treated last year and expanding its services. Only the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are no shortcomings in management revealed by the fact that they still get themselves into short-term crises towards the end of the year when they have had such a huge influx of funds. It is essential that we tackle those management weaknesses, because then we can get even more out of the enormous increases in funding that the Government are putting into the service.

"Working for Patients"

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications of the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" for education and training.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Government are committed to maintaining the quantity and quality of education and training by and for the National Health Service. Our proposals in respect of

medical and dental education were set out in "Self-Governing Hospitals: An Initial Guide" in June. Our proposals for the education and training of key non-medical staff groups are set out in working paper 10 published last month.

Mr. Porter: Can my hon. Friend confirm that under these proposals NHS hospital trusts will play a full and proper part in education in the Health Service and that regional health authorities which, after all, have a natural and proper role, will also play a part in continuing education in the NHS?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can strongly confirm the points made by my hon. Friend. The NHS trusts not only will play their full part in promoting education, but they will want to do so; they will want to be seen as centres of excellence committed to the NHS, of which they are a full part. The role of the regions has been further clarified in the recent working paper to which I referred, and not only in securing but in funding education and training, not only in assisting in medical education but in the training of the important non-medical groups which play an important part in the Health Service.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that, as well as the health professionals who are directly affected, the patients have a legitimate interest in what will happen to the education and training of those professionals if hospitals choose to opt out? That being the case, what proposals does the Minister have for the involvement, consultation and democratic rights of patients to have a say about a change in status of an NHS hospital?

Mrs. Bottomley: There is no question of any hospitals opting out of the NHS. The NHS trusts will be full members of the service. The whole purpose of the Government's proposals is to put patients first, and patients will benefit from having highly qualified, well-skilled staff looking after them in the NHS.

Mr. Paice: I welcome my hon. Friend to her first Question Time as Minister for Health. Is she aware that the proposals and new regulations for the training of hospital doctors have put in jeopardy the future of Newmarket general hospital, which services a large part of my constituency? Will she give an undertaking that if the proposals to downgrade that hospital, because of the new regulations, come to her or to her right hon. and learned Friend, they will be carefully examined bearing in mind that such downgrading would be to the serious detriment of all the patients in my constituency?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Government obviously take the training of doctors extremely seriously as they are fundamental to the future of our Health Service. There are now 14,000 more doctors than there were in 1979 and they are all well qualified and well skilled to meet health needs. I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the hospital in his constituency in more detail and to review that matter carefully.

Perfusionists

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the number of perfusionists employed by the National Health Service to reach its target.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): There is no national target for the number of perfusionists, who are staff who work the heart and lung machinery in cardiac surgery, to be employed in the National Health Service. It is for health authorities to arrange appropriate staffing levels in the light of local needs.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that that is an unsatisfactory reply? He must know that it has been estimated that the NHS needs 200 perfusionists, but at present has only 90. Will he also accept from me that perfusionists not only operate the heart and lung machines in cardiac surgery but are vital in the treatment of lymph cancer? Until the Government recognise the new technique of limb perfusion for the treatment of lymph cancer and recompense those few excellent hospitals that seek to treat lymph cancer by limb perfusion for the high cost of that treatment, we will never reach a satisfactory solution to the present tug of war between the cardiac surgery departments and lymph cancer departments of every hospital that can offer limb perfusion? People are virtually begging for that treatment, which is vital.

Mr. Freeman: We are well on target to meet the 1990 aim of some 15,000 bypass graft operations for cardiac patients. With effect from 1 September we have introduced into the NHS a new flexible pay-grading structure for technicians. They have greatly welcomed that structure and it will help us to ensure that the 1990 target is met.

Mr. Sims: Does my hon. Friend agree that perfusionists play a key role in operations ranging from heart bypasses right through to complete organ transplants? Is he aware that 22 perfusionists left the NHS within the past 12 months and that perfusionists are not specified in the grading letter to which my hon. Friend referred? They feel unrecognised and inadequately rewarded. Will he consider their case seriously to see whether he can do something about their numbers because that is vital?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that perfusionists perform a vital task in cardiac surgery and elsewhere in our hospitals. I draw to his attention the fact that they have welcomed the new flexible pay-grading structure. I shall, however, certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend has said and I shall have a close look at the letter that we issued to the Health Service.

Mr. Ron Brown: I do not believe that any right hon. or hon. Member would disagree that the argument about perfusionists is important, but surely it is more important at this time that we resolve the ambulance drivers' dispute, which has been imposed on the people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a good try, but I am afraid it is miles wide of the question.

Capital Expenditure Plans

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to remind chairmen of regional health authorities of previous ministerial assurances concerning capital expenditure plans.

Mr. Freeman: It is the responsibility of regional health authorities in conjunction with district health authorities to draw up plans for capital expenditure on hospital and

community health services. Ministerial assurances that capital projects will go ahead are given in conjunction with regional health authorities and will be respected.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend remind the chairman of the North Western regional health authority that Ministers have made pledges on at least four occasions since 1983 that Bolton new hospital would start this year? We are still waiting despite the fact that more than 100 schemes have been commissioned in the north-west since 1979. Will my hon. Friend also ensure that no new formulas are used that would adversely affect the north-west because of a change in the way in which the standard mortality ratio is used?

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can re-emphasise to my hon. Friend and to my other colleagues from the north-west and other parts of the country where capital projects have been discussed—and I use my words advisedly—that where ministerial assurances have been given that capital projects will go ahead, those promises will be honoured.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister think that the present capital programme will overcome the difficulties facing patients in the west midlands who go to an optician for an eye test, discover that their sight is defective, and then require a referral to an eye hospital? Those patients have to visit their doctors, who then contact the Birmingham and Midland eye hospital, which is giving appointments 30 months hence. Is that not part and parcel of the problems that Sir James Ackers raised with the Secretary of State and was publicly humiliated for his endeavours?

Mr. Freeman: We need no lessons from the Labour party about capital expenditure plans. This Administration has increased capital expenditure to a total of £1·2 billion this year.

Self-governing Hospitals

Mr. Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the implications for patient care of the proposals to allow hospitals to become self-governing National Health Service trusts.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Self-governing NHS hospital trusts will remain firmly within the NHS, but they will have far more freedom to take their own decisions on the matters that affect them most without detailed supervision from my Department and the health authorities. This will give a better quality service and encourage other hospitals to raise the quality of their services.

Mr. Gale: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what further steps his Department intends to take to rebut the black propaganda being peddled by the Opposition and ram home to the public the fact that the Health Service reforms, while they may not be welcomed by every leader of every Health Service union, are designed to improve patient care, which is what the Health Service is there for?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will take every opportunity to do that. In fact, I am today launching a small newspaper advertising campaign to bring home to the public the improvements in the family doctor service that will result from the new general practitioner contract that the House has approved.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the case of the Royal Scottish National hospital, which is home to about 800 mentally handicapped patients, where in a recent ballot of employees more than 95 per cent. rejected the management's proposal for opting out? How can the Government justify going ahead with such damaging proposals when they have been so resoundingly rejected by the overwhelming majority of staff involved in the front line of patient care? The only people who seem to support opting out are a few pen-pushing bureaucrats with no first-hand experience of patient care.

Mr. Clarke: Scotland has a fully devolved system of Government and that is a responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), is present and if it were in order I am sure that he would reply in connection with the hospital to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I am familiar with other ballots that were organised in several English hospitals for which I am responsible. On the whole, at this stage, they are something of a waste of time. What usually happens is that the local council, the Labour party or the trade unions begin by giving a preposterous description of the proposals to the staff and then take a ballot in which the staff say they do not like that rather unpleasant description of the proposals. When we have proper applications for self governing status as hospital trusts, which I shall receive and welcome after the House has given assent to the necessary legislation next summer, there will be full public consultation about what is proposed for the hospital and the improvements in the services that the hospital can offer to the patients as a result of self government. At the moment, the political ballots are distracting attention from the real work of getting ahead with the preparations.

Mr. Pawsey: May I offer my right hon. and learned Friend my thanks for two things? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too many."] There would be more—

Mr. Speaker: Make it just one.

Mr. Pawsey: First, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for approving additional consultants for the Rugby health authority and for giving the green light for self-governing status for St. Cross hospital. Does he accept that both those things are warmly welcomed and will do much to improve the quality of health care in the Rugby area?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that when people encounter what is happening to the Health Service nowadays they feel similar reactions to the new units opening across the country and to the expansion of patient services that is taking place. I contrast my hon. Friend's question with questions asked by Opposition Members who represent districts that have had huge increases of resources for their hospitals and huge increases in the number of patients treated yet who continue to raise obscure points which they claim show that the service is going into reverse.

Ms. Harman: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that opting out is in the patients' interest and that patients should have a choice, why, as Secretary of State, has he not arranged that in each of the 79 areas patients

should have a say through a ballot? Has he made arrangements for them to have a say in any of the 79 areas that are applying to opt out?

Mr. Clarke: I have repeatedly explained that we have no applications and we shall have no applications until the summer of next year. When the applications come in they will be worked up with details of what is proposed and the plans for the development of service that the sponsors propose. I have always said—indeed, the White Paper says—that at that stage there will be full public consultation. At the moment all that is being arranged is absurd political propaganda by the Labour party followed by local ballots asking selective and tendentious questions. There will be more serious public consultation when the applications come in.

NHS Reform

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any additional funds are being made available for the implementation of the Health Service reforms.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase expenditure on accountants and statisticians in the National Health Service in preparation for his plans in the White Paper.

Mr. Freeman: We have made available the sum of £82 million for implementation work this year. This includes £12 million to strengthen the finance function in health authorities and hospitals. This funding will be over and above continued improvements in patient care.

Mr. French: I welcome that news, but will my hon. Friend undertake continuously to monitor the funding needed for implementing these reforms so that unavoidable and unforeseen extra expenditure can be taken into account without precipitating a crisis that will place the entire reform programme in jeopardy?

Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Spending for this year, at £82 million, although a significant sum, still amounts to only 0–4 per cent. of the total budget for the NHS in England, a budget which is growing this year by about 10 per cent.

Mr. Bennett: Can the Minister explain how it is possible for the Government to find extra funding to put forward their doctrinaire plans yet not possible for them to find extra funding to settle the ambulance dispute, to reduce the hours of junior hospital doctors or to ensure that we have enough nurses? Have not the Government got their priorities wrong; do we not need the money to be spent on patients rather than on statisticians trying to prove that the Government are doing better than they are?

Mr. Freeman: No, Sir. The additional funds required to improve the management of the Health Service are designed to improve the control of expenditure of finite resources. Good financial management is necessary for better patient care.

Mr. Couchman: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House, as my right hon. and learned Friend reassured the BMA, that no patient will suffer for lack of medication, whatever the need or cost, as a result of the impact of his proposed indicative budgets?

Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are no proposals to cash-limit drug prescriptions by general practitioners.

Mr. Morley: Is not the Minister's proccupation with accountants more to do with the fact that the Government propose to run hospitals more like grocery stores than as a service to the community? Would it not be better if he addressed himself to the fact that hospitals are run on team work and that many groups of workers—laboratory technicians, physiotherapists and X-ray technicians—feel that they do not have a career structure or salary that reflects their commitment to the communities in which they work?

Mr. Freeman: The NHS in the United Kingdom consumes £26,000 million. Surely the hon. Gentleman will therefore accept that we need the best possible methods of controlling that vast expenditure.

Mr. Latham: Will it be clearly understood by the accountants and statisticians that through extra efficiency they will be expected to recover more than the £12 million that it will cost to recruit them?

Mr. Freeman: Absolutely.

NHS Reform

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on his review of the National Health Service.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Excellent progress is being made on the implementation of the proposals set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients". I am confident that our proposals will lead to an even better service for patients.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity of the Health Service review to review also the financial position of Project 2000 nurses who have to work under the fear that bursaries will be transferred to loans? Will he say something to allay the fears of those nurses?

Mr. Clarke: We have made wholly reasonable provision for the bursaries of Project 2000 nurses. I think that my proposals have been welcomed by the Royal College of Nursing. We have no intention of moving student nurses to the loans proposal and intend to continue to provide for them by bursaries. We are almost exclusively the sole employer of trained nurses and it makes no sense to introduce the loan scheme to student nurses in the National Health Service.

Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the British Medical Association and those of its members who are maliciously suggesting that they may run out of money when they have to prescribe drugs for their patients? The main objective of that campaign appears to be to frighten patients into opposing the Government's reforms.

Mr. Clarke: I very much hope that all GPs have now stopped doing that because I know that until recently some were saying that rather vigorously to their patients. The BMA has now accepted that there was never any question of refusing necessary treatment or drugs for patients. Obviously, it is quite wrong for individual patients to be

frightened by people who still persist in that misunderstanding. No doubt in some cases it was merely misunderstanding.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Contrary to the Secretary of State's earlier statement, may I assure him that, unfortunately, we in Scotland do not have a devolved system of government? Is he aware that the Scottish Office, which has responsibility for the provision and administration of the Health Service in Scotland, has advised that there will be no separate legislation on the reforms? Who will take the decisions about the Health Service in Scotland? Will it be the Secretary of State for Health or the Scottish Office?

Mr. Clarke: If I might give the perspective of an English Minister, I can assure the hon. Lady that Scotland has a fully devolved Health Service. I have absolutely no responsibilities for Scotland and I take no decisions about the Scottish Health Service at any time. Those decisions are in the hands of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He and I both need changes in the legislative framework before we can implement the reforms that have been put forward in the White Paper. The way in which the reforms are carried out in Scotland will be wholly the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the review of the National Health Service, from which my constituents will benefit substantially when money follows the patient, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that in my constituency we have many elderly people and two very old mental deficiency hospitals for which more funds are required? Will he please see that enough money is pushed into the north-west so that we can have a generous allocation for those services?

Mr. Clarke: In my opinion all parts of the National Health Service will benefit from the new system because we will be matching resources more closely to the delivery of expanding services in the manner that my hon. Friend rightly described as money following the patient. Lancaster will benefit particularly because at the moment it draws in many patients from outside its district boundaries for which no adequate financial provision is made under our present arrangements. It will be important to distribute money to the district health authorities which will have to make decisions about where to put the money in order to get the service that they require in a way that reflects the make-up of the population, demographic trends and so on of each district. They should certainly bear in mind the age structure in Lancaster to which my hon. Friend refers.

Community Care

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to ensure that standards of assessment for community care services are of a national minimum quality.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Local authorities will be responsible for carrying out assessment, in collaboration with medical, nursing and other interests. Further information on the procedures will be contained in our White Paper on community care, to be published shortly.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister told the House on 17 October that the Government were committed to advocacy for the disabled, so why have they delayed shamefully the implementation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1987? The Minister referred to local authorities, so why have the Government postponed meeting local authorities to discuss these matters, which are so critical to disabled people?

Mrs. Bottomley: The proposals in the White Paper will be a milestone in the provision of care for those who need to be cared for in the community. They will offer the opportunity of assessment and appropriate care rather than the perverse incentives that have taken place in the past. The provisions of the Disabled Persons Act will be reviewed in the light of the proposals once they have been announced.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that now that so many beds are provided in the private sector for the care of the elderly, the generally held view is that there is not sufficient liaison between the private and public sectors for the care of the elderly? Is my hon. Friend satisfied, within the context of the report, that everything possible is being done to obtain that important information?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend addresses a key point. What matters to the elderly is that provision is available and there is a choice of provision. Our proposals for care in the community will allow for an equal playing field, which will in turn allow choice, variety and proper inspection. No more will either the public or the private sectors be disadvantaged.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that Sense, the organisation of and for blind-deaf persons has issued a clear statement in which it says that the tragic case of Beverley Lewis might not have taken place had the appropriate sections of the Disabled Persons Act been implemented? Will the Government accept that they have on the statute book the opportunity to prevent such dreadful cases from taking place, and will they make sure that this Act is implemented with all possible speed? Will the Minister also resume negotiations with the local authorities?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do of the danger of springing to too many conclusions on one tragic and appalling case. We are looking carefully at this case and will learn lessons as appropiate. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the provision, recently announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, of further services and attention to the needs of the mentally ill.

Prescriptions

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of National Health Service prescriptions are free of charge; and what is the comparable figure for 1979.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In 1988, 77·5 per cent. of prescriptions dispensed by pharmacies were dispensed free of charge. This compares with 60·9 per cent. in 1979.

Mr. Knapman: Is it not basic common sense that the one person in four who can readily afford to make such contributions should do so, thereby further expanding NHS services?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. The prescription charge is relatively modest and it is appropriate that the one in four who can reasonably pay should do so. The Government's responsibility is to put patients first—to ensure that resources are used effectively and efficiently—and the fact that there has been such a significant increase in the number of prescriptions given free of charge is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to patients.

Mr. Robin Cook: By what percentage have eye tests dropped since they stopped being free of charge? Will the Minister confirm that, on present trends, we are on course for 3 million fewer eye tests this year?
Last year, the Secretary of State told the House that he did not believe the optometrists when they warned that charges would deter people from having eye tests. Given the stark evidence of the dramatic drop in the number of eye tests, do Ministers believe that now?

Mrs. Bottomley: I will take no sermons from the hon. Gentleman about the provision of care. We intend to review the take-up of eye tests but it was, after all, the hon. Gentleman's party, when in office, which cut capital spending, nurses'. pay and the NHS budget. This Government have increased nurses' pay, and allowed record spending on the Health Service, which has led to an extra 25,000 patients a week being treated. We have a record to be proud of.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 92 per cent. of the cost of drugs is paid by the taxpayer? Does that and the wide variation in drugs prescribed by doctors not underline the case for indicative drug budgets?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made his point well and I endorse it.

Finance

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to reassess the way in which the financial needs of the National Health Service are determined each year.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: No. The Government will continue to assess the financial needs of the NHS within the context of the annual public expenditure round.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister admit that talking about additional expenditure on the Health Service beyond the retail prices index is meaningless when costs within the Health Service rise ahead of the RPI, and the number of old people who need treatment means there is additional need for expenditure? Will the Minister take that into account during the next public expenditure review?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is not meaningless for the 70,000 extra nurses who have been employed by this Government. It is not meaningless for the 14,000 extra doctors who have been taken on. It is not meaningless for the nurses who


have received a 45 per cent. increase in pay and it is not meaningless for the £4 billion hospital building programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, then I shall depart for the United States of America to address the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Cohen: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by the chairman of the Police Federation, Alan Eastwood, in which he said that the police do not have the necessary paramedical expertise to man ambulances? The same is true of the Army. Why are the Government putting lives at risk by treating ambulance men and women as the latest enemy within? Have the Government put them on low pay because they think that saving lives is cheap?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his underlying assumption that it would be far better if the ambulance men were to carry out their normal duties, bearing in mind the fact that most other people in the Health Service settled for 6·5 per cent., and that the London ambulance men have been offered well over 9 per cent., backdated to April. That is why it would be better if the ambulance men were all at their posts dealing with emergency services and with the nine out of 10 patients who are non-emergency but need to be conveyed to hospital.

Mr. Onslow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that elections in Britain are fought on issues of principle and policies, which must rule out an Opposition that have neither?

The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I agree that the Opposition drop principles and policies when it is expedient, but this Government stick to both. It is that sticking to principles and policies, and passing out as many powers and responsibilities as possible—and enterprise—to people, that have enabled us to create more wealth than ever before, to spread it more widely than ever before and to have a higher standard of social services than ever before.

Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister was asked why the Chancellor resigned, why did she not tell the truth?

The Prime Minister: If my right hon. Friend had wanted to resign on a point of policy, I could have understood that. Policy is a matter for Ministers. I find it totally incomprehensible that someone who has held the office of Chancellor with high standing for six years should want to resign over personality—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Over personality, with such suddenness and haste.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister appears to be the only person left in the country who does not understand why the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, resigned. Is it not the truth that the right hon. Gentleman said to the Prime Minister, "Either the adviser goes by the end of the year or I go now"? Why cannot she admit that truth?

The Prime Minister: Policy is a matter for Ministers, advice is not. I tried to persuade my right hon. Friend not to go but it was quite clear that he was determined to go, and go that day.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the 1982 principles agreed by the United Nations Security Council, which stand part of resolution 435, are honoured and upheld in Namibia following the elections in that country which began today?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes a special interest in these matters and that she is aware that resolution 435 lays down that there should be elections to a constitutional convention. She will be aware also that if the winning party gains only a simple majority, the matter remains for the United Nations representative. It it gains 66 per cent., the winning party can draft the constitutional convention. We do not know what will happen. I have absolute faith in Mr. Ahtisaarï, the United Nations special representative, who will decide on all the evidence whether the elections have been free and fair. That is a matter for him, and only him, to decide. We put our whole trust and confidence in him in making the correct decision.

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread anger and consternation in mining areas that has been expressed by miners and private mine owners about the importation of foreign, subsidised, slave-labour coal? Is she aware also that British mines have increased their productivity by 90 per cent. and profit by 30 per cent? Is not this a case for buying British?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the enormous sums of investment that have been put into the mining industry during the lifetime of the Government—about £2 million for every working day over the past 10 years. That should enable the mining industry to be highly competitive and, therefore, to compete with other coal which could otherwise come in, which would be subject to transport costs. I hope that the industry will be competitive, but we cannot long continue in Britain having people who, when they go shopping themselves, expect to have the benefit of competition and when they produce themselves to expect to have the benefit of protection.

Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that haemophiliacs who have been accidentally infected with the AIDS virus have a unique case both for the sympathy of the nation and the full support of the House? Will she today instruct those who have the managing of these


affairs to have done with their legal wrangling and allow these people the compensation and the peace of mind that they surely deserve?

The Prime Minister: I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. He will know that a considerable sum has been given to a trust that has been set up for the benefit of these people. It is very similar to trusts which have been set up in other countries. My hon. Friend will be aware, as his supplementary question suggested, that there is a legal case pending. I think that we must wait for the result of that. In the meantime, I make the point that the trust provides about the same amount as has been available to these people, who have suffered so much, in other countries.

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister feel that her diminishing credibility in the office of Prime Minister would be somewhat salvaged were she to follow yesterday's advice which was offered her by her dear friend Sir Edward du Cann, who suggested that a leadership challenge would clear the air? In the event of such a development, does the right hon. Lady think that her position would be unassailable?

The Prime Minister: The comment from behind me was that a party that cannot decide its own name is hardly in a position to criticise anyone.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the London borough of Barnet on the fact, admitted in The Sunday Times, that the best exam results were obtained in that borough? Does she agree that it is no coincidence that the best school exam results come from Conservative boroughs and the worst from Labour boroughs?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Barnet. We both represent constituencies in the borough of Barnet. Its educational results are quite the best and it has some good Members of Parliament too.

Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clelland: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the nation on television just a week ago, that she did not know why the Chancellor had resigned? Can she explain why someone whom she described as, "Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant", was unable to explain clearly to her that he would have stayed if Alan Walters had gone?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his question carefully before he heard my previous reply. I have nothing further to add.

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what fresh steps she can take to protect and promote Britain's interests with a fair and even-handed allocation and enforcement of quotas, restrictions, rules and regulations within the EC?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we scrutinise draft directives carefully. Frequently, they are perhaps not best suited to the conditions in this country. Directives are also scrutinised by the House. I entirely agree with him that we must watch them extremely carefully, and, bearing in mind that he comes from a fishing area, that we must be careful that the fishing quotas are not undermined by the Community.

Miss Hoey: What advice would the Prime Minister give to a young person sleeping on the streets in my constituency tonight who cannot get a home because he cannot get a job and cannot get a job because he cannot get a home?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will be aware that a great deal of extra money has been allocated to homelessness, particularly to building through the Housing Corporation—some £815 million this year. She will also be aware that there are now 100,000 more vacancies on youth training schemes than people taking them up, that income support is available for young people and that housing benefit is available to 16 and 17-year-olds in great need at the same rate at which it is paid to older applicants. A great deal has been done and I am sure that she will bear in mind all those matters when she takes up cases.

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hannam: Tomorrow, when my right hon. Friend speaks on the environment at the United Nations, will she point out that the most effective way of protecting the environment is through energy efficiency, in which Britain has a superb record,—having achieved a 33 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation—and that our level of energy efficiency is twice the average for countries in the European Community?

The Prime Minister: Yes. My hon. Friend has delivered Britain's excellent record on energy efficiency. It is very good, indeed it is better than that of many of our competitors. He will also be aware that since 1973 we have increased output by about 26 per cent. That was achieved with a reduction in energy usage of 4 per cent. That is a good record which augurs well for the future. It is extremely important for the environment that we continue to be a keen and active supporter of greater energy efficiency.

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eadie: As many people are wondering whether the Government team in office this week will be the Government team in office next week, I wish to ask the Prime Minister an easy question. Does she feel entirely


happy when her Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] Yes, which one? Does she feel entirely happy when he goes to the United Nations? Does she feel wholly happy that he will be sitting next to a representative of the Pol Pot regime?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's point about changes, I have the impression that the Opposition Front Bench has changed recently and that there are now rather more CND people on it than there were before.

Clapham Junction Accident (Report)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the results of the inquiry into the Clapham junction rail disaster of December 1988.
I am publishing today, as a Command Paper, the report by Sir Anthony Hidden on his investigation under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871 into the causes and circumstances of the accident.
I know that I speak for the whole House in expressing my deepest sympathy for the relatives and friends of the 35 people who died as a result of the accident. Our sympathies go, too, to the many people who were injured, some of them seriously and some of whom are permanently disabled; and to the many others, both passengers and rescuers, who bear the mental scars of that harrowing day.
Equally, I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the many people who gave unstintingly of their skills, courage and kindness that day; policemen, ambulance men and firemen, doctors and nurses, railwaymen and local authority staff, and, not least, members of the public. As Sir Anthony Hidden comments, a deep debt of gratitude is owed to them all.
Sir Anthony Hidden concludes that the accident was caused by faulty wiring work carried out on Sunday 27 November 1988 during a major investment programme to modernise signalling on the lines into Waterloo. That faulty work could and should have been discovered through routine checks, but the wiring was not checked and the fault was not found.
During later resignalling work on Sunday 11 December a wire that should have been removed two weeks before was accidentally moved. That made an electrical connection into the Clapham junction signal box that passed false messages to one of the signals on the main line into Waterloo.
The investigation has revealed major defects in the way in which British Rail's southern region signalling and telecommunications department organised resignalling work and supervised and tested completed wiring. The report makes 93 recommendations. Some are directed towards preventing a recurrence of an accident of that type; others are addressed to securing improvements in British Rail's management and organisational systems for safety. Others are directed to the emergency services, and some to the Government.
I am asking BR to deal promptly with all the recommendations addressed to it, and to report to me on their implementation within three months. Many of the recommendations are based on BR's suggestions or on the conclusions of BR's own internal inquiry. BR has already taken action to implement those, although in some cases Sir Anthony Hidden recommends faster implementation. In particular, BR is already committed to two important new developments—automatic train protection, and the installation of cab radios.
BR has anticipated some of the additional cost of implementing the report in its current spending plans. I have endorsed that provision in full. BR will need to consider what further expenditure will be required. I can assure the House that finance will not stand in the way of the implementation of the report.
I have today written to the chairmen of London Regional Transport and the passenger transport executives asking them, where appropriate, to consider their own systems carefully in the light of the report, and to report to me on their proposals for implementing the relevant recommendations within three months.
While the inquiry was sitting, two further railway accidents took place—at Purley on 4 March 1989, and at Bellgrove two days later. Separate inquiries into those two accidents have been carried out by the railway inspectorate and the reports will be published in due course. At my predecessor's request, Sir Anthony Hidden and his team considered whether there were any common issues between the accidents. His report does not suggest that there was any single underlying cause. His wider recommendations were made in the light of all three accidents.
As I have said, some of Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations are addressed to the Government. The report recommends that railway legislation should be reviewed, and the powers of the railway inspectorate widened and clarified. We shall introduce the necessary legislation as soon as an opportunity arises. Meanwhile, most of the changes can be implemented by administrative action. Where this has not already been done, I have asked that action should be taken urgently by both my Department and BR.
The report asks me to ensure that the railway inspectorate is adequately staffed to implement the report. Additional inspectors are being recruited and their numbers will be expanded as necessary.
The report recommends a thorough study of appraisal procedures for the safety elements of investment proposals. All investment submissions which come to me for approval already include a specific section on safety issues. My Department will discuss with British Rail what further improvements can be made.
The report asks the Government to ensure that British Rail is allocated sufficient frequencies to operate cab radios effectively. We have now allocated five new frequencies to British Rail and given it access to two others. That fully meets its requirements.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has considered the recommendations addressed to his Department. He has already introduced a review of the health services' response to major incidents with a view to preparing revised guidelines. His Department has accepted the remaining recommendations which affect it.
I have considered Sir Anthony Hidden's recommendations on the costs of representation at the investigation and have accepted them in full.
Finally, I am very grateful to Sir Anthony Hidden and his assessors for their thorough investigation and their clear and constructive report. I know that Sir Robert Reid and his board are determined to make sure that the lessons of this tragedy are thoroughly learnt and properly implemented. The necessary action will have the Government's fullest support.

Mr. John Prescott: Our thoughts today are with the relatives and friends of the 35 people who died and those who were seriously injured in this terrible tragedy who will be looking to the House to learn all the lessons of Sir Anthony Hidden's report and to take immediate action. Therefore, we support all that has been said by the Secretary of State on that matter.
We welcome the Secretary of State's endorsement of the tributes to the work and courage of all those in the emergency services—the police, the fire and especially the ambulance services—who were on the scene within 10 minutes of the tragedy, and to the many others who were involved.
I am sure that the House will wish to share Sir Anthony Hidden's public condemnation of those few reporters who caused considerable distress by harassing relatives and their families, and support his call to those who have it in their power to prevent such practices in the future.
We congratulate Sir Anthony Hidden and his staff on their report, and on the professional and thorough way in which they carried out their task, producing a report which shows clearly that safety has suffered at the expense of financial and commercial considerations.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the report reveals starkly the dangers of policies that led to the presence of overworked, exhausted staff, many of whom lacked proper training, and who suffered from low pay and poor morale? That was due to a management that strove so hard to achieve tough financial and commercial targets set by the Government that basic safety concerns were lost. The report is thus a powerful indictment of both inadequate management and the Government's policy.
Surely the report demands a rethink by both the Government and British Rail's senior management of the policies adopted over the past 10 years. Does the Secretary of State now accept the need for an independent railway inspectorate, outside the influence of his Department, with more staff and greater powers and involved in every aspect of safety?
Sir Anthony Hidden recommends the introduction of automatic train protection systems, cab radios and black boxes. As the Secretary of State received the report in September, can he now tell the House how much such measures will cost, and give us an assurance that he is ready to give the go-ahead immediately for that vital investment—especially as British Rail's chairman told the inquiry that unless public funding was provided the Government must bear responsibility for the consequences?
Does the Secretary of State share my concern at the fact that one third of the signalling and telecommunications staff involved in the resignalling work had not had a day off for 13 weeks, and that another third had had only one in a fortnight? Does he also share Sir Anthony Hidden's concern about the cuts in staffing levels? Staff numbers in the permanent way, signals and telecommunications section have been cut by 18 per cent. in the past five years.
Is it not apparent to the Secretary of State that those cuts are a direct result of the 51 per cent. cut—a cut of more than £2 billion—in Government grants to British Rail over the same five-year period? Does he agree with Mr. Maurice Holmes, director of safety, who, in a letter to a colleague that is quoted in the report, expressed concern at the fact that a business-led approach to management was in danger of eroding safety standards in British Rail? Is it not clear from the report's recommendations that that is indeed the case?
When the Secretary of State issues a new set of objectives to the board, will he ensure—unlike his predecessors—that safety is seen as being as important as

efficiency or cost-cutting? Will he comment on speculation that the report has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Does he agree that there has been a clear legal understanding that all transport operators, including British Rail, should have corporate responsibility for the safety of their operations?
Will the Secretary of State adopt a new approach to management, investment and revenue support so that never again do we see tired, overworked, demoralised staff make a fatal error on a dark, cold Sunday evening as they rush to finish the work before the Monday morning rush hour?

Mr. Parkinson: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for the gracious way in which he acknowledged the work done by the emergency services and by Sir Anthony Hidden.
Let me deal first with a central point to which the hon. Gentleman returned throughout his remarks—the suggestion that safety had been put at risk because of shortage of funds. British Rail made it clear in its evidence to the inquiry that its spending on safety had never been constrained by the shortage of funds. The hon. Member consistently fails to understand that British Rail's revenue has increased more quickly than the grant has decreased. Therefore, the cash resources available to British Rail for investment have been growing. British Rail is pursuing the biggest investment programme for 25 years.
The report makes it clear that even if there were constraints on investment expenditure in the late 1970s, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, and the early 1980s, those constraints have been eased and that a full investment programme is now being carried through. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the report a little more carefully, but it is a big document and I know that he has not had it for long.

Mr. Prescott: Two hours.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman keeps on talking about management's contribution. Management does not shirk its responsibility, but I draw his attention to at least two occasions in the report when the unions' attitude is quoted by Sir Anthony. He says that unless the unions start to adopt a more flexible attitude and to negotiate more carefully with management, British Rail will continue to be short of the skilled staff that it needs. In other words, co-operation is needed between management and unions. That is spelt out very clearly in the report. It is mentioned twice as a constraint on the employment of skilled people.
As for investment in radios, the hon. Gentleman knows that the principal problem with the radios was to get the frequencies released. We have now released five frequencies, and have access to two others. For the first time the full range of frequencies is now available. British Rail, as I said in my statement, can spend whatever is necessary to inroduce radios into cabs.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Holmes. It is true that Mr. Holmes was becoming concerned. He said that at that time British Rail was still operating on the right side of the safety line but that he was becoming concerned. We have started to tackle the problem by a massive increase in the investment programme, which is now under way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the report would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The police are conducting their own investigation and will be making their report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he wishes to use the report for further evidence or investigation, it is open to him.
I conclude as I began by saying that the Government are absolutely committed to safety as a top priority. Funds will be made available to meet the standards that British Rail and the Government agree.

Mr. John Bowis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I endorse the sympathy that he expressed to all those affected and the tributes that he paid to the many people in and around my constituency who went to help on that occasion—not least the boys from Emanuel school who clambered down the bank to bring succour to those who were injured and, in many cases, dying and the police who both helped on the day and subsequently accompanied those who had been involved back to their homes to make sure that there were no long-term after effects.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on their swift response to the recommendations. Sir Anthony Hidden's report seems to be very thorough, and we should congratulate him on it.
In the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), it is only right and fair to point out that Sir Anthony pays a considerable tribute to the chairman of British Rail for the emphasis he places on safety. I hope that the underlying message in the report is seen by the public as being that safety on British Rail is paramount. I hope that the travelling public will be reassured that safety on British Rail is of a very high quality and that the busiest stretch of rail in this country is also one of the safest.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, it is ironic that the incident occurred not as a result of cuts but as a result of investment? The investment in new signalling tragically led to the incident. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate his pledge that as much money as is necessary to carry out the recommendations on safety will be forthcoming?
Will my right hon. Friend examine one point which may not be in the report—overcrowding on trains—and consider whether any further measures need to be taken, not because of overcrowding on particular trains but because of the overcrowding that can occur on local commuter trains which are not subject to the same guidelines on overcrowding that apply to long-distance trains?

Mr. Parkinson: I join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the public, and especially to the boys at Emanuel school who did a tremendous job that horrific morning. I agree with him that the inspector mentions the chairman of British Rail in the report and compliments him on the sincerity of his commitment to total safety. He says that he had no doubt of Sir Robert Reid's absolute commitment to make safety the highest possible priority. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is ironic that such a terrible accident arose from the modernisation of the system. Investment in the modernisation of the signalling system produced that dreadful accident. I confirm that we have made it quite clear that money will be no obstacle to implementing the recommendations.
The report addresses the question of overcrowding, and concludes that it played no part in the number of casualties. It says that there is no evidence that those who were standing suffered any greater injuries than those who were sitting. But I agree with my hon. Friend that overcrowding should be avoided. That is why we are in the process of a massive programme of modernisation of Network SouthEast, the improvement of the rolling stock and the lengthening of stations to produce a better, safer system for the travelling public.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate my colleagues and myself with the expressions of sympathy and with the tributes to those who carried out the inquiry and produced the report and to all those members of the emergency services who attended the accident. Surely the summary of the lessons of the report is that there must be increasing emphasis on the need for safety investment and inspection.
With inspection in mind, given that the accident has now been shown to have been preventable, and given that there is an annual litany of preventable accidents on British Rail, will the Secretary of State consider the need substantially to increase the size and the power of the inspectorate? Will he consider whether it should be given the authority to act independently and at all times decide whether it needs more resources? A strong and effective inspectorate might have ensured that what went wrong before the Clapham incident was corrected before the disaster occurred. Perhaps that is the best lesson and the best tribute that the House could give to those who died and the bereaved.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone and the content of his remarks. I entirely agree with him, and so does the entire board of British Rail, that there must be increasing emphasis on the need for safety and investment in safety. Bringing the thought and culture of safety into the minds of all British Rail employees is a prime objective. Ironically, a director of safety had been appointed one month before the accident, and his duty is to promote thinking about safety at all levels and at all stages of investment.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the inspectorate, but supervision of the day-to-day work of those carrying out difficult jobs is the key. Safety is not determined by the number of inspectors. It is important that they are available, but the main issue is the quality of the supervision on a day-to-day basis of the men doing the job. That is what failed in this instance. We have the highest number of inspectors that we have ever had. We are in the process of increasing their number by eight following the recommendation of the Fennell report and we will be increasing it by another four following this report. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that increased numbers are necessary.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Thousands of my constituents are among those using the Waterloo line every working day. They and everyone else will welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about safety and the emphasis he placed upon it. Can he say anything specific about the steps to be taken in the future to monitor signalling performance? That seems to have been the flaw in this case.

Mr. Parkinson: Following the accident, the board has taken a number of specific steps already. I mentioned earlier the appointment of a director of safety. It took the decision one month before the incident to introduce automatic train protection and it is pursuing it with vigour now. It has gone out to tender on a pilot project. However, the technology necessary to introduce it is not available off the shelf and, as Sir Anthony recognises, British Rail will have to develop it. He says that, when the technology has been evolved, it should be introduced over a shorter time scale than British Rail was planning; it was thinking of 10 years and he says that it should be five.
British Rail commissioned a major safety audit and every comparable piece of technology has been inspected. It has decided to invest in cab radios. It suggested many of the recommendations included in the report and is pursuing them now.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Secretary of State concede that the pressures placed by the Government on top management for performance and their subsequent pressures on middle management place impossible pressures on those on the job? Does Sir Anthony Hidden's report refer to competition from privatised British Telecom for telecommunications engineers? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of us do not believe what the Government say about rail safety when he and the Minister of State are specifically permitting London Underground Ltd. to extend one-person operation to its deeper tubes which will deliberately and measurably reduce standards of safety which are already unsatisfactory?

Mr. Parkinson: I have made the point—the hon. Gentleman can look at the figures—that there is now record investment in British Rail, and a substantial sum will be spent to implement the recommendations made in the report. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not had the chance that I have had to study the report, but he should study it carefully. In the report, Sir Anthony says two things. First, he says that it would be pointless for British Rail to start creating a wage spiral by competing with other people for the skilled men available, and the report mentions British Telecom. Secondly, he says that, unless there is more flexibility and co-operation between management and unions in finding ways of solving these problems, there will continue to be a shortage of labour. It will need co-operation from all men of good will in the system and not just management.

Mr. Robert Adley: Those of us who have constituents who were bereaved in the accident will be grateful to Sir Anthony Hidden for the thoroughness of his report, which can be judged by what has been said today, and to my right hon. Friend for the speed with which he has accepted its recommendations.
My right hon. Friend referred to false messages coming from the signals. Is it not true that for the past 150 years of railway history, when we have had tragic accidents due to signalling failures, they have invariably led to further safety measures being introduced? Although that is no consolation to the bereaved, is it not a reassurance to the travelling public?
I want to ask my right hon. Friend a specific question relating to blame. Does he accept that there is a fundamental difference between a private sector ferry operator operating in competition with other operators

and a nationalised industry trying to provide a public service—part funded by the taxpayer—for social reasons? Bearing in mind the discussion about the DPP, where do the sponsoring Departments stand? My right hon. Friend cannot answer that serious question now, but he must consider it in future.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend says that we must learn from this accident, and that that has been the pattern in the past. That is why Sir Anthony was appointed and has done such a thorough job and made his 93 recommendations. He twice referred to the danger of relying totally on hindsight. He said that men of good will carrying out their work, as the people on that occasion were, can make mistakes and that it is very easy for other people, with the benefit of hindsight, to point to the mistakes. My hon. Friend is not arguing for that spirit of acrimony. He is saying, "Let us learn lessons", and I hope that we are doing that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I associate the London group of London hon. Members with the Secretary of State's tribute to the emergency services. Would it not be a more fitting tribute to the ambulance workers, who did such a valuable job, if the Government were prepared to concede their case for a reasonable wage increase? Is the Secretary of State prepared to speak to other Ministers so that the rightful demands of that hard-working group of emergency workers—the ambulance workers—is met in full? If he does not do so, Government statements on and tributes to the emergency services simply appear to be hypocrisy and cant.

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot get involved in the present industrial dispute. It has never been questioned that the Government put great value on the work of the emergency services. Sir Anthony underlines that point in his report. I acknowledge publicly, as the report does, the great debt that we owed to the London ambulance service on that occasion and on many others.

Mr. David Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the recommendations on the response of the health services, particularly counselling services, for the bereaved? Does he agree that, with hindsight, one of the lessons to be learnt from the Clapham tragedy, as from others, is that the services should be maintained far longer than has been the case to date?

Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking the recommendations extremely seriously. My hon. Friend draws attention to one of them. My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the recommendations in full and will be implementing them.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Secretary of State accept that it would do much for public confidence if the safety inspectorate were not within a sponsoring Department but were entirely separate and independent? That is true about the North sea and transport.

Mr. Parkinson: There is no criticism whatsoever of the railway inspectorate in the report. The report endorses its work by making recommendations that its powers should be extended. For instance, it states that it should have the power to study the safety and manufacture of rolling


stock. That is an oversight and it will be corrected. The inspectorate is not criticised. It is not exactly praised, but the fact that it should be given extra duties is evidence of the report's view of its importance. There has been a long argument about the location of the safety inspectorate. I am interested only in its contribution to safety. I am examining its location, and I will report to the House as soon as I can.

Mr. John Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if we had time to study the report and to reflect on it before making too many off-the-cuff comments? Nevertheless, I hope that he will encourage British Rail to deal sympathetically and speedily with any financial problems that the victims may still have, because no word spoken in this House by hon. Members of any party will alter the position of those people who will suffer for a long time to come and to whom we have all expressed our sympathy.

Mr. Parkinson: One of the satisfactory features of this sad incident was the prompt way in which the chairman of British Rail went to the scene and accepted full responsibility to the relatives on behalf of the board. I shall bring my hon. Friend's comments to his attention. However, if my hon. Friend has any evidence that that is not happening, I should be only too happy to follow it up as a matter of great urgency. I know that British Rail is anxious to do the right thing by those who have suffered from the tragedy.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am a former railway worker and I believe that the Secretary of State has relations in the railways. Does he agree that, in view of the long hours worked by railway workers, there should be a substantial increase in their wages and in the number of staff? When such demands are made, is the Secretary of State prepared to be sympathetic to them and to encourage his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to be sympathetic also?

Mr. Parkinson: The inspector states that the electrician concerned had worked long hours but that he was not physically tired. However, the inspector went on to say that he felt that those long hours could have blunted the edge of the electrician's concentration and might thus have affected the way in which he did his job.
I agree that there is a real problem—indeed, Sir Anthony touches on it in the report—in attracting to this skilled work the skilled people that we need. I do not say this in any spirit of acrimony, but Sir Anthony states that, to find a way round that problem, both management and unions will have to show a greater sense of flexibility than they have been prepared to do to date.
The promotion structure for electricians, for example, prevents skilled people from coming in at anything other than the bottom grade, which means that skilled people do not want to join the service. Sir Anthony has said that that is the result of an agreement between British Rail and the National Union of Railwaymen and that it is one of the things that needs to be examined. We are not talking acrimoniously, but to find a way round what is clearly a problem, unions and management will have to talk seriously together about ways of changing some of the old practices.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the comprehensive nature of the

report will be widely welcomed by my constituents who use the railway line in question daily, and especially by those families that were so tragically affected by this serious accident?
May I press my right hon. Friend on the question of two-way radios? Is he aware that the Wessex electric rolling stock is the most modern on Network SouthEast and enables passengers to make telephone calls from the train? When will two-way radios be installed? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no truth in the rumour that the delay in allocating frequencies was a result of resistance from the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been great pressure on wave lengths and it has been difficult to obtain the necessary frequencies. That has been a big obstacle, but those problems have now been resolved, as I have said. The exclusive use of five frequencies and access to two others should now ensure that swift progress can be made on going ahead with cab radios. I do not think that British Rail needs any prompting from me about this, but if it does, I should be happy to give that prompting.

Dr. John Marek: It is a pity that the Secretary of State has said only today that there is enough finance available for safety on the railways. That statement should have been made 10 years ago. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to blame everybody except the Government. Is he aware that there has been a prolific growth in the number of unmanned level crossings in the past 10 years and that there were countless deaths until Professor Stott made a report which put things right? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the accident at Bellgrove would not have happened—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that time is short this afternoon. Will he please confine his remarks to the report under discussion?

Dr. Marek: The Bellgrove accident was mentioned, Mr. Speaker; British Rail was trying to save money, and that accident would not have happened had British Rail not been trying to save money.
Is the Minister aware that the Clapham accident occurred simply because British Rail was strapped for cash in trying to modernise an outdated system? There is a charge of corporate murder which should be addressed, but it should be addressed not by British Rail management, who were accomplices, but by the Government.

Mr. Parkinson: It took Sir Anthony Hidden and his assessors more than 50 days, listening to evidence, to arrive at their conclusions. The hon. Gentleman has dismissed their work, dismissed their report, drawn on his prejudices and talked nonsense.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend continue to refute, as he has done effectively this afternoon, the allegation made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that this accident occurred through lack of investment? It is fair game for the Opposition to attack the Government on almost any issue, but not on a matter where lives have been lost. The Opposition should not try to turn that to party


political advantage. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, there is, in any case, no evidence to show that what the Opposition allege is true.
Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is no evidence anywhere in the world to show that efficient, profitable and well-run industries are any less safe than old-fashioned nationalised industries? Is it not a fact that the record of privatised companies has been superb? In other words, nothing can be blamed on anything to do with the move to make British Rail more efficient, a move which, in the end, will lead to greater safety through greater investment.

Mr. Parkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the fact that the report shows that British Rail said in its evidence to the inquiry that at no time has it been constrained by a shortage of financial resources in making safety a high priority. British Rail now has the biggest investment programme it has ever had. Opposition Members and I disagree because they believe that one shows one's commitment to a system by the size of the subsidy. We believe that it is important to modernise and improve the system. As the subsidy has been reduced, the investment has gone up, and we think that that is the right way to proceed.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, wherever the investment goes, it is not available to provide enough trained men and women, kneeling in the dark trying to rush to finish a job when they are exhausted because they have been working compulsory overtime? Will he accept that all the oleaginous expressions of regret about safety will not do anything to protect the passengers if the men and women who work on our railways, who are forbidden now by their masters from making any public statement about their fears of what is going wrong, are not given proper wages, proper support and investment in time and money rather than the abstruse arguments that the Minister has used this afternoon?

Mr. Parkinson: I am aware that the hon. Lady has taken an interest in this subject for a long time and that she represents a major railway town, but on this occasion I totally disagree with her. The problems of British Rail are clear and they are analysed carefully. Sir Anthony says that British Rail is having trouble in attracting sufficient numbers of skilled people. He outlines some of the causes, and I am telling the hon. Lady that the problem is infinitely more complex than she made it sound in her intervention.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that an important part of his statement for many people has been the refutation that there is any linkage between this accident and those which, sadly, followed at Purley and in Glasgow? In regard to those who are particularly concerned with Purley, he will recall that it was agreed that the inquiry should be held in public and that the findings should be published. He said that he hoped that they would be published in due course. He will appreciate that we are anxious to determine what the separate causes of the other accidents were.

Mr. Parkinson: I must tell my hon. Friend that publication of those reports has been delayed at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On money, what does the Secretary of State quietly say to Jimmy Knapp when he complains about skilled men leaving British Rail to do maintenance on local authority car park barriers? What exactly is meant in the eighth paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's statement when it says that finance will not stand in the way? What is the agreement with the Treasury about extra money? What sum has been talked about between the Department of Transport and the Treasury as a result of the Clapham accident which will be made available as a result of Sir Anthony Hidden's report? What figures, in pounds, have been discussed?

Mr. Parkinson: On the second point, provision was made before the report was received, in anticipation of the sort of expenditure that might be necessary, and it is already built into the public expenditure arrangements which I agreed with the Treasury. If further resources are necessary, and they will be, I give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely unqualified assurance that they will be made available.

Mr. Graham Riddick: It is clear from the terrible accident at Clapham and also from the serious and shocking accident that occurred at Huddersfield station last night that the possibility of accidents is greatly heightened when modernisation of the line or of signalling—in the case of Huddersfield, the modernisation of the station itself—is taking place. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that British Rail has taken steps to ensure that its employees are particularly vigilant and safety conscious at such times? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that a full inquiry will take place into the events at Huddersfield station last night? Will he also take this opportunity to join me in expressing gratitude to the emergency services at Huddersfield and also in sending best wishes to those who were injured in that accident?

Mr. Parkinson: I have had a preliminary report on the Huddersfield accident, but I cannot comment further because the investigation will be under way. As soon as I can tell the House anything else, I will, but at the moment I believe that it would be unfair to those concerned to prejudge the inquiry. My hon. Friend is right in intimating that both accidents arose from investment in modernisation. If he reads the report, he will find that the inspector says that it was because the modernisation was not properly planned and supervised that the dreadful accident happened. British Rail has tried very hard to learn from that and, as I have already said, it has accepted and will implement the recommendations. We shall look at the Huddersfield accident to see whether there is more to be done or whether mistakes were made. I cannot prejudge that issue now, but the arrival of the ambulance men on the scene within four minutes was very impressive and I pay tribute to that.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State has made many references this afternoon to the inflexibility of the trade unions in the railway industry. If by that he means that he wants more multi-skilled people on the railway, I advise him to read the very good health and safety report, which shows that in industries where there is multi-skilling the accident rate is much higher than it is in other industries where single-skilled tradesmen are employed.
I divert the Secretary of State's attention to his reference to the Glasgow Bellgrove accident report. The report on that accident cannot possibly be delayed at the request of the DPP, whose remit does not run to Scotland. There has already been an inquiry into the Glasgow Bellgrove accident under the fatal accident inquiry legislation in Scotland. That kind of bad briefing, slipshod approach does not give us the confidence to believe that Ministers have learnt the lessons of those accidents and that they will not happen again.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to correct the record. The Purley report has been delayed at the request of the DPP. The Bellgrove report has been delayed because, as he knows, one of the key witnesses was too ill to give evidence. I apologise to the House for bracketing the two, but I did not wish to mislead the House. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to put that right.
Paragraph 16.77 of the report states:
The internal promotion system which is an inevitable handicap to BR in satisfactorily filling the higher posts in its wages grade staff in the S and T Department, is the result of a formal agreement between BR and the NUR. It is a fetter on the acquisition of skilled staff and it is long overdue for reconsideration.
That is the spirit in which I have been referring to the unions today. Management and unions must get together to develop modern working practices for a modern railway system. That will need an effort on both their parts.

Mr. Peter Snape: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to paragraph 14.36 of Sir Anthony Hidden's report in which he makes specific reference to the need for safety to be included in the objectives of the British Railways Board.
Does the Secretary of State recall a letter sent by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), to the chairman of British Rail on 21 October 1986 setting out the objectives which the Government wanted British Rail to pursue over the next three years? The letter was more than 1,000 words in length, but there was no mention of passenger safety, although there are plenty of references to the need to cut costs, to improve efficiency, to increase the rate of return on investment, to reduce the public service obligation grant requirement, and to increase the role of the private sector. There is no mention of safety. Does the Secretary of State share Sir Anthony Hidden's concern about that?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that staffing levels in the permanent way, signal and telecommunications section, have been cut by 18 per cent. in the past five years? Were the staffing cuts the direct result of the cut of 51 per cent. in Government grants to British Rail over the same five-year period?
Paragraph 14.40 of the report states:
It is clear that if sensible decisions are to be made by BR and by Government on the most effective use of funds for saving the lives and reducing the injuries of staff and passengers, then it must establish a way of assessing in financial terms the effect on safety of investment schemes. Both the Government and BR need to conduct a thorough review of its investment appraisal procedures so that a financial value can be put on safety.
The Secretary of State makes great play of the fact that the accident took place at a time of considerable investment in the signalling system. Is he aware that the Waterloo area resignalling scheme was approved in 1978 and that, despite that approval, Clapham junction A signal box, which

played a central part in the tragic accident and which was built in 1936, still signals half the trains through the busiest junction in the world? So much for all the investment under this Government over the past decade.
Does the Secretary of State accept that both our fathers worked in the railway industry and that if my father was still here he would be appalled at the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to shuffle off responsibility for the accident on to the railway unions instead of acknowledging the financial hostility of the Government of which he is a member?

Mr. Parkinson: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am proud of the fact that my father was a railwayman. Nothing that I have said this afternoon could be described by anyone who was remotely objective as shuffling off.
The report recognises that management accepts its responsibility. It recognises that there were faults and it is determined to correct them. The report draws attention to the fact that that correction will require the co-operation of the unions. The hon. Gentleman is drawing a totally misleading and, I suspect, deliberate inference from my remarks.
In the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred from my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), although safety is not referred to directly, the legislation has safety as its prime objective. However, I am drawing up new objectives for British Rail, and I will spell out safety in a much more specific way.
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that the level of staffing is connected with the level of grant. I must point out to him over and over again that, although Opposition Members continually complain about the level of fares, the income from fares has made up for the shortfall from the subsidy. We believe that eliminating wasteful subsidy and ploughing money into investment is a far better way.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the appraisal of safety investment. It is a difficult and rather morbid business to try to attach a value to a life. However, we recognise that it is vital that better ways are found of appraising safety.
Investment in safety, about which there is a myth, is riot required to produce any sort of return: safety is justified as safety. The idea that it has to pass a profit test is quite wrong—

Mr. Snape: Read the report.

Mr. Parkinson: When assessing two systems, one might take into account which gave better value for money, but no return is required.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the 1978 scheme. It has taken a long time for that scheme to be introduced and fully implemented—

Ms. Clare Short: Why?

Mr. Parkinson: If the hon. Lady reads the report, she will find out why. The whole report is about the problems of planning and making arrangements, and about 93 recommendations for improving the system.
I conclude as I began. This was a dreadful accident which changed the lives of many of those who survived and caused great loss to the families of the 35 who died. It is our duty to learn everything that we can from the dreadful tragedy in as unacrimonious way as possible. We shall be implementing the 93 recommendations as a matter of urgency. The chairman of British Rail is coming to see


me tomorrow morning at 8.30 and we shall discuss how to get a move on with the recommendations that are not being implemented at the moment.

Ambulance Service (Pay Dispute)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the ambulance dispute in the National Health Service.
The situation in the London ambulance service is that the trade unions have reimposed their 14 conditions for the operation of the accident and emergency service, which means that the management of the London ambulance service are unable to provide a guaranteed accident and emergency service for London. The unions have in effect called out their accident and emergency service members in sympathy with non-emergency men who have been required to work normally if they are to be paid in full.
Nearly all accident and emergency services in the area served by the LAS are now being provided by the St. John Ambulance brigade, the Red Cross and the Metropolitan police.
Following earlier discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I have now asked him if the armed forces would assist the police and voluntary services in providing an accident and emergency service in London. In view of the gravity of the situation and the need to maintain an essential service to the public, my right hon. Friend has agreed to my request. He has given instructions to the armed forces to provide assistance in London and they will be deployed with the police and voluntary services from tomorrow afternoon.
The Government have taken this step with the greatest reluctance. We would very much prefer to see a full accident and emergency service provided by trained ambulancemen but that is impossible while the unions continue to insist on all the 14 conditions which they have imposed. I must stress that the involvement of the armed forces, the police and the voluntary services will cease once the trade unions agree, as they did two weeks ago, to provide a normal accident and emergency service.

Mr. Robin Cook: Yesterday the Secretary of State advised the House that he resented the allegation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that he had made unpleasant comments about the ambulance staff. Is he aware that every broadcasting bulletin this morning quoted him as describing ambulance staff as "pretending and posturing"? Can he confirm that he used those words? Does he really believe that that kind of language helps to resolve a dispute which has reached the crisis and severity that prompted this statement?
We have just heard a statement which reminded the whole House of the debt that we owe to the emergency services because the report praises the courage and professionalism of the emergency staff at the Clapham accident. In the light of those words, how can the Secretary of State invite ambulance staff to settle for 6·5 per cent. when firemen have been awarded 8·6 per cent. and the police 9·2 per cent.? Is he aware that yesterday both the police and the firemen gave their complete support to the ambulance staff in their demand for parity?
Is the Secretary of State aware that at this moment in every ambulance station in London ambulance staff are ready and waiting to provide emergency cover? Is he aware that in those stations it is management that has now


refused to put through the emergency calls? Is it not clear that it is not ambulance staff who have withdrawn emergency cover from London but the management of the London ambulance service?
The Secretary of State said that from tomorrow the Army will be called in to provide cover in London. Can he confirm that many of the Army personnel who will be providing the cover have been trained on the basis of a refresher course lasting 48 hours? Was it really possible in those two days to train them in the techniques of defibrillation, incubation or infusion? Why rely on men who are not trained for the trauma that they will have to meet and who have no experience of meeting it when we have trained ambulance staff waiting at stations to do the work?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that in the eight weeks of the dispute he has never once sat down with the staff side of the ambulance men? Would it not have been better to talk to the ambulance staff before he talked to his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence?
Finally, can the Secretary of State answer the question that has remained unanswered since the dispute began and that remains its central mystery? If he is so right in offering ambulance staff 6·5 per cent. and if the ambulance staff are so unreasonable in rejecting it, why is he so afraid to go to arbitration which would end the dispute this afternoon? Instead of calling in the Army, why not call in the arbitrators and give back to London a proper ambulance service?

Mr. Clarke: It is quite obvious that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) takes the view that was taken by some of his hon. Friends about an hour ago in Question Time that the people of London will get their accident and emergency service back when the ambulancemen are given the money that NUPE demands, whatever that may be.
The 6·5 per cent. offer that the hon. Gentleman complains about is not what is on offer to the men taking the industrial action that I have described. Qualified men in London are all being offered at least 9·3 per cent. under the existing offer. The 6·5 per cent. is available to the rest of the service. When judging the present action it is worth recalling that NUPE and the other trade unions recommended the 6·5 per cent. offer to their members for settlement. They are entitled to change their mind, but I get increasingly irritated by Mr. Poole describing as appalling an offer that he recommended only a month or two ago and regarding the rejection of that offer as justifying such dangerous action against the general public in London as he is proposing.
We are talking about last year's pay settlements in the course of which NUPE settled the claims of many of its members in the National Health Service for 6·5 per cent.
The men from the Army who will be coming in tomorrow afternoon are in many cases less well paid than the ambulancemen whose jobs they will be taking. They took a 6·8 per cent. settlement, as did the nurses and some other groups. If people wish to discuss the issues of the amount, they should be discussed, as management has been suggesting throughout, in the Whitley council. Mr. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the National Health Service, has constantly tried to reopen negotiations. There is nothing in the case that NUPE now claims in rejecting an offer that it commended to its men only a month or two ago that justifies such disgraceful action as it is organising in London at the moment.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked about my comments this morning. I have not heard any of the media, but I hope and trust that I have been reported more accurately than in the potted version given by the hon. Gentleman. I referred to the fact that the men although doing no work are at the moment still in the ambulance stations. It is the case that they are pretending to be prepared to operate the accident and emergency service when—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: That is disgraceful.

Mr. Clarke: That is not disgraceful. The men know perfectly well—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman exploding with rage on the strength of his briefing from NUPE.

Mr. Spearing: That is not so. I have been there.

Mr. Clarke: We had all this out last week. The men knew—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unseemly to shout in this way. It is not the way that we conduct ourselves here.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I looked at the 1 o'clock BBC news and it was made quite clear that Mr. Nichol was not telling the truth, and that the men were there to carry on emergency work, if asked to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody must take responsibility for what he says.

Mr. Flannery: He should tell the truth.

Mr. Clarke: The 14 points to which the unions have reverted include a refusal to use the radio telephone sensibly, a refusal to crew up, and other points on which they have not been insisting, such as the adequate provision of red blankets. Last week or two weeks ago, they withdrew some of those points to restore the accident and emergency service and the claim that today's difficulties have somehow been caused by the management is a sick joke being perpetrated by the unions and plainly believed by some Labour Members.
I have no desire to see Army personnel being used on the streets of London to assist the public. That has not had to be done since the last Labour Government did it 10 years ago. The men should now resume accident and emergency working, and honour the promise that NUI'E keeps giving, that the accident and emergency services will not be threatened by the industrial action. We can then return to the business of the industrial dispute, which can be settled if the unions are as willing to enter into sensible negotiations as the management has made it clear for the past two or three weeks that it is.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the same union, NUPE, allowed the dead to remain unburied in the winter of discontent? Does he also understand that the people of London recognise that, if there are any deaths, the blame for them should be laid at the door of Mr. Poole and NUPE?

Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's indignation that union leaders face the prospect of risk to the public and then make heated statements saying that it is not their fault, when the origin of the whole problem is that the


members—the ambulancemen—are obeying instructions from the union, which were drawn up with the purpose of disrupting the service to the public. I also recall the activities in the last year of the Labour Government, when they gave in to so many of the strikes in the Health Service that eventually all of them went on strike for ever bigger claims, and NUPE was at the forefront.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) reminded me of the occasion when he was a local authority leader under the last Labour Government, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence came to see him to organise the use of the Army and of the Green Goddesses. We know that all that happened was that the then Government gave in to the pay claim, with the result that yet more people went on strike a month or two later.
This dispute is unnecessary. It could be resolved in the Whitley council and it ought to be resolved by sensible negotiation. Nothing in the claim justifies the kind of action that is being taken today.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State recognise that public opinion is behind the ambulancemen, because it is clearly seen outside this place, and apparently everywhere except in the Department of Health, that the offer to the ambulance men is unjust, in comparison with offers to the other emergency services? It is a question of political will for him, as the Secretary of State, either to encourage arbitration or to make the funds available to the NHS management to enable a fair settlement. Why will not the Secretary of State respond to that reasonable request? That would do away with the need for industrial action. If he did so, he would be entitled to accept a sensible basis for all the emergency services that would involve no strike agreements and pendulum arbitration. Why does he not adopt that approach?

Mr. Clarke: As I have just said, the 6·5 per cent. offer, as it was then, was negotiated in the Whitley council and was recommended to the men by their own trade unions. Since it was turned down, it has been improved to 9·3 per cent. in London. The ambulancemen negotiated a lower level of settlement than other NHS staff because they received a particularly generous settlement in 1986 and had an hour taken off their working week last year. For all those reasons, the management is justified in saying that any further discussions must start on the basis of that deal, which has been commended so recently by the unions.
I do not accept that comparisons can be made with other emergency services, when only one tenth of the mileage of the ambulance service is taken up by emergencies. We have never had the same pay system for the police, firemen and ambulancemen in Britain under any Government.
I accept that there are paramedics, and people who provide particular parts of the ambulance service, who ought to be appropriately rewarded for those skills. I have seen no sign that the unions are prepared to make that distinction in the settlement that they seek. I find the point of view of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) surprising, because he is not in the Labour party. He said that, because the ambulancemen are on strike, we should turn away from the system of negotiation and give them the money that NUPE says that it wants to

restore a vital service to the public. If I were to encourage the management to concede that, NUPE would have a lot more people out on strike in the winter, as it has proved capable of in the past.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, due to the regrettable and irresponsible behaviour of the unions, one man's pay dispute could soon degenerate into another man's loss of life? Will he consider the importance of taking the negotiations out of the political arena? I do not want him to commit himself in any way, shape or form, but will he please not rule out the possibility of a pay review body for the ambulance men?

Mr. Clarke: I am conscious of the first matter that my hon. Friend raised. My prime responsibility and that of my colleagues in the Government, including the Secretary of State for Defence, is to try to ensure public safety as far as that is possible, using the resources available to us in the armed forces and the police. We are bringing in those services because we see the need to protect the public against the consequences of the action now being taken.
As I have already explained, the management view seems to me to be the only view that a truly responsible management could take. There are review bodies for some staff, but we cannot have group after group of Health Service workers taking industrial action, and getting arbitration or a review body after initially being attracted by offers made to them. That way lies chaos.
In the Health Service the management has to weigh up pay claims with services to patients. It is all right for the railways to pay out 8·8 per cent. when railway workers are on strike—they wind up putting the fares up, which nobody likes. It is all very well for Labour councillors to give 8·8 per cent. to their manual workers because they wind up increasing the community charge. If the management of the Health Service starts paying more to people who take individual action against patients, it has to close wards and reduce patient services. A responsible management should not do that.

Mr. Tony Banks: I thought that the Secretary of State's statement was absolutely despicable, and I have heard many despicable statements since 1983. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that to say that ambulance workers are not prepared to provide emergency cover is a monstrous perversion of the truth, and he knows it? Will he explain to the House how we can justify a 10·7 per cent. increase, dating from January, for Members of Parliament when ambulance workers will get only 6·5 per cent.? Is he prepared to organise a vote in the House so that we may see whether Conservative Members are prepared to vote in favour of their wallets rather than of saving lives?

Mr. Clarke: I ask the hon. Gentleman to go away and check the facts. I think that he believes what he says—I accept that he normally does. However, he is lending credibility to the myth that management is causing the present difficulties.
If the hon. Gentleman genuinely wants the accident and emergency services to be maintained, he should advise his constituents who work in the service to operate it normally. They are operating it not normally, but


according to conditions which make it impossible to guarantee a service because there is no proper communication with the vehicles.
Last year, the pay increase to hon. Members was equivalent to the ambulance men's offer, which was 6·7 per cent. As Ministers got less I have to gaze around the House to see if any hon. Member can recall the exact percentage increase. This year the pay settlement has been based on the Civil Service settlement in August which was 6·5 per cent. By a quirk of the resolution of the House it happened that the third stage of a deal of 4 per cent. paid earlier was added to that figure for hon. Members. Therefore, the settlement for Members of Parliament is based on the 6·5 per cent. that civil servants accepted in August or September this year. We could carry on arguing about that and about its merits, but it is a matter for the management to settle with the unions in the Whitley council.
The idea that the ambulance men's pay claim justifies risk to life and limb on the streets of London is a grotesque exaggeration.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement has been both factual and honourable, will he not pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes)? In a civilised country, is it not time that those who work in life-saving public emergency services should have their pay taken out of the political arena? They should forgo the right to strike, and the pay for all the emergency services should be dealt with by an independent pay review body as is nurses' pay. That is long overdue.

Mr. Clarke: One could make that case for everyone who works for the Health Service, and many other people who work in public services. The result would be that the management of the National Health Service would have responsibility for the pay and conditions of more than I million people taken out of its hands, and arbitrators would dispose of the resources. Managers would be left to see what they could provide by way of patient services as a result.
These issues can be settled by sensible negotiations. We introduced a review body for the nurses when they refused to take industrial action, while NUPE and other unions had all the other staff out in an industrial dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) remembers that because I think that he was in the Department with me at the time.
It is false to say that ambulance men, in the middle of an industrial dispute caused by NUPE, should be given a review body as a reward. The situation is different from that under which the nurses were given a review body. They have always had a no-strike deal as a part of their constitution and they were given a review body when they refused to take industrial action.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that he and his friends are undertaking a massive conspiracy to deceive the public about the true nature of this dispute? Ambulance men and women are underpaid. They have put in a claim for parity with the fire service, which ought to be met. The Secretary of State has misled the House by claiming that the 14-point statement by NUPE in London is anything other than an agreement absolutely and totally to maintain 999 services. It is on his instructions that the ambulance officers this morning were

told to stop staff going out on 999 calls. It is the Secretary of State's decision that is preventing the people of London from getting a 999 service.
Members of the unions concerned have made it clear, at every turn, that they will maintain an emergency service. The responsibility for not maintaining the service lies with the Secretary of State and with him alone.

Mr. Clarke: The unions are claiming parity not with firemen but with fifth year firefighters. They do not like first, second, third or fourth year firefighters because that would not make the claim as big. It is an arbitrary choice to link pay with fifth year firefighters, with whom there has been no formal link in the past.
We shall have an accident and emergency service as long as the men who are in that part of the service work it in the ordinary way.

Mr. Corbyn: That is what they are doing.

Mr. Clarke: No, 14 points have been invented that do not normally apply. The hon. Gentleman is maintaining the debate vigorously from a sedentary position, but he cannot deny that those points are not points which usually apply in the service.

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, they do.

Mr. Clarke: They have been invented to disrupt the service and they have succeeded in doing so. The ambulance service cannot discharge its duty to the public until the men agree to work normally, and certainly agree on key matters such as using the radiotelephone.
I tell the House categorically that I did not give instructions to anybody to take the action that the management of the London ambulance service has taken. The managers of the service notified the NHS management executive, and me through the executive, of what it was proposing to do. In my opinion it had no choice if it was to discharge its responsibility to the people of London, except to ask the police and eventually to ask me to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ask the Army to maintain essential services.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business that is before the House. There is a Standing Order No. 20 application and a ten-minute Bill. In addition, the House must deal with a long list of amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill. I shall allow three more questions from each side of the House and then we must move on.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, although the Police Federation is not especially happy that police officers should have to perform the duties of ambulance staff in an industrial dispute, its chairman has stated publicly today that it would be wrong for an emergency service to feel obliged to take industrial action to secure a pay agreement? The federation has not expressed any view on what should be the appropriate level of pay for ambulance men and women.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I tell him and the Police Federation that I contemplate the use of the police to maintain the ambulance service only with the greatest reluctance. They are being diverted from other tasks. They are not as well trained as the ambulance men


and they cannot provide as good a service as that which could be performed by the accident and emergency service, although they all do their manful best. I can assure my hon. Friend and the federation that the Government will use policemen or, if necessary, military personnel only to protect the life and limb of citizens at risk. There is no question of our using the police force or the armed forces for the purpose of strike breaking. To return to the industrial dispute, which I think should be settled, the action taken by the unions should at the very least not threaten life and limb by withdrawing the accident and emergency services.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Only this afternoon I was looking at the British Empire medal that was awarded to Mr. Brian Murray, the ambulance man who dragged the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) from the Grand hotel at Brighton. Mr. Murray is on hunger strike for 60 hours on the embankment further up the river from this place in protest at the way in which he, as an ambulance man, is being treated by the Government. Is it not a disgrace that brave people such as Mr. Murray should be humiliated and insulted by the Government, who are intent on cutting their pay?

Mr. Clarke: I accept entirely that the ambulance service carries out its duties conscientiously and well and that the performance of the service in recent tragedies of all sorts has been exemplary. Indeed, it is almost the only emergency service in the country that has not come in for any criticism, directly or indirectly, for its response to industrial action. Having said that, the proper level of pay for ambulance men should be settled by a process of civilised negotiation, which has worked for many years in the Whitley council and which produced a result this year which was commended to Mr. Murray and his colleagues by the negotiators who were responsible for it. It is a great pity that he feels obliged thereafter to take part in a hunger strike. It is a gesture, but it does not seem to be frightfully relevant to the issues in question. It is wholly undesirable that the men in London—Mr. Murray does not work in London—should suddenly introduce 14 extraordinary points, which include some that put the lives of Londoners at risk.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the negotiating procedure for the salaries of ambulance men has not yet been exhausted? Surely each ambulance man should reflect to himself that in not returning to negotiation and by taking the present action he is potentially harming the people of London, and that he should return to work and carry out his duties.

Mr. Clarke: The Whitley council management side takes the view that the negotiations were never completed in the Whitley council. It began to increase its offer to the London men after the first ballot of the members of the unions. It increased the London men's offer to 9·3 per cent. There has been a remarkable change of attitude on the part of union leaders between the spring or summer of this year and now. In my opinion, that has far more to do with the political climate than with differences in negotiating a proper level of pay for ambulance men for the next year or two.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State has said repeatedly in a number of answers that the ambulance men should return to a negotiation. Is there more money on the table to increase the core pay offer? Is he saying that potentially more money is on the table?

Mr. Clarke: I shall repeat to the best of my recollection what Mr. Duncan Nichol has said. He has talked about the possibility of a two-year deal that would involve bringing some more money forward from the second year. He has talked about the possibility of local flexibility to deal with parts of the country where there are local recruitment and retention problems. He has talked about a review of the 1986 deal with the trade unions, which was advantageous to ambulance men but which is now giving rise to arguments about the way in which overtime is calculated.
In advance of the unions either modifying their claim one iota or agreeing to return to the negotiating table, it seems that Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the Health Service, has put forward several propositions. Unfortunately, the unions prefer their 14 points and getting the police on to the streets to do their work.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are two facts on which any responsible trade unionist should quietly reflect? The first is that the central complaint of the ambulance staff is that they should have comparability with the police force and the fire brigade. That has been examined by an independent tribunal—the Clegg commission—and rejected. Secondly, all the National Health Service staff have their pay and conditions regarded by the Whitley council, and 94 per cent. of them have settled within the council this year. It seems extraordinary that when one group seeks to break that negotiating tradition the Opposition should rush immediately to its aid rather than support the established machine which has existed for a considerable time to settle pay and conditions in the NHS. Is not the bottom line in the dispute that we can see things becoming only worse until the ambulance staff go back to the Whitley council and start, with the NHS management team, to find a way out of the dispute through the proper and accepted negotiating machinery?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. Comparability with firemen and the police has been examined by successive Governments and rejected. The concept was examined by the Clegg commission and rejected. The ambulance men do not claim parity with the police, and to the best of my knowledge and recollection they have never done so. They are claiming that they should be compared with fifth-year firefighters, who happen to be a convenient grade for the purpose of getting the extra money that they are aiming at this year, which is 11·5 per cent. Review bodies are urged upon me. The nurses have a review body, and they took 6·8 per cent. last year. The Army has a review body, and it took 6·8 per cent. last year. The 6·5 per cent. that is on offer is not a million miles away from those settlements, but that is not what the unions are after. They are after a double-figure pay settlement as a reward for industrial action. They should modify what they say because, as my hon. Friend has said, 95 per cent. of the Health Service staff have already settled for about 6·5 per cent.

Mr. Robin Cook: Given the Secretary of State's replies to some of my hon. Friends' questions, may I help him to get it right on the use of radiophones? The only restriction in the 14 points on the use of radiophones is their use for non-emergency calls. There is no restriction in the 14 points—there never has been—on the use of radiophones to respond to accidents and emergencies. In the light of that clear position on the 14 points, how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman possibly use that as his strongest example of why it is necessary to suspend the entire accident and emergency service and bring in the Army?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is not describing accurately the restrictions that are being placed on the use of radiophones. If a radiophone is not being used normally, it is not possible to control an accident and emergency service. The unions are not prepared to use the system normally so that full communications are established between control and ambulance drivers.
The second key point is crewing up, which we covered last week. As I understand it, there are also foolish points about not collecting casualties because there are no red blankets. I am not aware yet that the unions are insisting upon that. It is absurd for the unions and their supporters to say, "We are prepared to operate the accident and emergency service" and then to say, "But there are these new conditions that we wish to apply to the way in which it should be operated." I know that the management of the service does not want to use the police or the Army any more than I do. It has called on us for assistance only because it cannot operate an accident and emergency service unless the unions agree to tell their men to operate it normally.

T. W. Kempton

Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement late yesterday evening that T. W. Kempton has gone into receivership.
T. W. Kempton was one of the largest textile firms in the city of Leicester and one of the most prominent in the country. It had a turnover of £25 million a year. The news that the firm has gone into receivership is a bitter blow to its 840 employees, many of whom live in my constituency, and a shock to the textile industry. Here is a firm which only six years ago received a Queen's award for export achievement.
There is widespread agreement, and the chairman, Mr. Russell Kempton, confirmed to me today, that the main reasons for the horrifying closure are increasing levels of imports and high interest rates. In the first half of this year, our trade deficit for textiles and clothing was £1,840 million, £140 million higher than the previous year. Job losses have been at an all-time high since last summer. The industry has lost 10,000 jobs. Since January 1988, 22 textile firms in Leicestershire have either closed completely or announced partial redundancies, amounting to a total loss of 2,800 jobs, or 5 per cent. of the entire county's work force.
Gentex, Ladies Pride, Corah, Harold Ingram, Chilprufe and Leslie Wise are just some of the names on the tombstones in the ever-filling graveyard of the textiles industry. I and other hon. Members who represent constituencies with textile interests have frequently urged the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to act to prevent this haemorrhaging. He states repeatedly that, in order to act against the surge of imports from the far east, he must have proof that damage has been done to our industry. The closure of T. W. Kempton is the proof that he needs. It is the latest in a long line of firms that have bitten the dust, destroyed by unfair competition and prohibitive tariffs imposed on exports from the United Kingdom. Only by acting decisively in the interests of our textile industry can the decline be prevented.
I ask the Department of Trade and Industry to assist the company in whatever way it can to preserve employment in Leicester. I ask the Secretary of State to meet the leaders of both sides of the industry to discuss the matter with urgency. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give me leave to move the Adjournment of the House so that we can discuss fully recent serious developments in the textile industry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement late yesterday evening that T. W. Kempton has gone into receivership.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I listened with care to what the hon. Member said. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and, if so, whether a


debate on the matter should be given priority over the business already arranged for this evening or tomorrow. In this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order. I regret that I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Eric Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now one and a half hours since the Prime Minister left the Chamber. I wanted to raise a point of order about something that the Prime Minister said at Question Time, but I could not do so because of a ruling that you made. The Prime Minister is probably on her way to America or Russia by now. It is absurd that I can raise my point of order only now, one and a half hours after the issue should have been raised.
I ask you to reconsider carefully your ruling. You accepted a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I do not disagree with that, because it was on a vital matter. My point of order is that the Prime Minister equated people in CND with Pol Pot. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) may laugh, but it is not funny to suggest that hon. Members who believe in CND are murderers or to compare them with Pol Pot and his despicable gang. The matter should have been dealt with there and then but, because of your ruling, only now, one and a half hours later, do I have an opportunity to raise it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should reflect carefully on what he has just said. At the beginning, he stated that he would have liked to raise a matter with the Prime Minister or about her comments at Question Time.

Mr.Heffer: That is not what I said in my point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Member to look in Hansardtomorrow at what he said. A point of order must relate to order in the Chamber. I cannot be held responsible for what the Prime Minister says, provided that she is in order. What she says is her own responsibility. As the House knows, points of order are matters on which the Speaker can adjudicate and I cannot adjudicate on whether the Prime Minister's comments are right or wrong. If I allowed what the hon. Member suggests, we should have a whole rash of points of order arising out of Question Time, which would disfigure the proceedings and delay subsequent business. The matter that the hon. Member raises is not a point of order for me.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), because it is important to clear up the matter.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you now ruling that hon. Members on either side can say just about anything about citizens for whom you are responsible? We are all responsible to the people who elect us to the House. Are you now saying that it does not matter what the Prime Minister or any other individual says in the House about people, even if it is a downright lie, and that we cannot stand up to defend our people?

Mr. Speaker: I am saying to the hon. Member and to the House that in this place we have total freedom of speech, unless it reflects upon another hon. Member.

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last week you said:
It is not in order to use House of Commons stationery for party-political purposes."—[Official Report, 1 November 1989; Vol. 159, c. 321.]
I have to hand a House of Commons franked envelope. There is nothing remarkable about that. We use them every day to write to our constituents about matters which concern them. Unfortunately, this envelope, franked and paid for by the taxpayers, was used to send out minutes to members of Redcar constituency Labour party. Will you consider sending a bill to Redcar Labour club, as, among others, it is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can give the hon. Member guidance. This matter was raised last week about other similar episodes. Will he kindly send the envelope to the Services Select Committee, which is already dealing with two other cases and which, I am sure, will wish to deal with that matter too?

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you were responsible for the order of the House. This afternoon, a statement was made which related to the London area, for which you allowed one hour. You called mainly London Members. The statement was not issued until the moment when the Secretary of State rose to speak, so no one could read it in depth beforehand or ask sensible questions on it. The whole procedure was a farce. You allowed only half an hour on the ambulance dispute, which relates to the whole country, and you stopped only seven Members who were seeking to catch your eye—of whom I was one—from asking a question. Hon. Members from the north of England in particular were not called to speak about the ambulance dispute. One would have thought that it was a private dispute occurring only in London. Will you consider the way in which you allocate time to ensure that hon. Members from constituencies outside London catch your eye?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time that I have agreed with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I have spent most of my time shouting and bawling from one side to the other—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not relish it.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh is right. I am not against spending an hour on the train

inquiry statement, and nor am I against spending an hour on the ambulance dispute statement. However, Mr. Speaker, you called hon. Members who had been called previously. There have been several statements on the ambulance dispute and some hon. Members have never been called—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not yet Mr. Speaker. I know that he was an experienced chairman and I often accept—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend was very good.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, indeed the hon. Gentleman was a very good chairman. I was often grateful for his advice.
I must say to both the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and the hon. Member for Bolsover that I have to make a balanced judgment—

Mr. Skinner: You have not been very good at it lately.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better calculate what he is saying.

Mr. Skinner: I have done.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, who raised the point, that I allowed the first statement to continue because I was anxious to ensure that those hon. Members whose constituents had suffered as a result of that sad train accident were called to say something about the report. I hope that the House will not consider that to be wrong.
There was a private notice question yesterday about the ambulance dispute. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully today, he would have heard the Secretary of State say that the troops are on alert in London, not elsewhere in the country. Perhaps there will be other occasions when this matter is before us—I hope not—but then I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

BILL PRESENTED

PATIENTS' CHARTER

Mr. Charles Kennedy presented a Bill to establish certain rights for people in need of health care, and to promote the involvement of patients in decision-making within the National Health Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 November and to be printed. [Bill 217.]

Toxic and Hazardous Substances (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please sit down?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, I will do.

Mr. McCartney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the general public in the purchase and application of toxic and hazardous substances within the home environment; to provide a code of conduct for use by consumers and contractors; to set up a register of proscribed substances; and for other purposes.
I am the chair of the all-party home safety group which campaigns in the House on a wide range of issues on behalf of consumers and workers. We believe in the right to purchase goods that do not poison, cut, gas, electrocute, burn, maim or kill, and in the right of workers to be employed in the safest possible environment.
The Bill belongs to a family of measures that the group has been promoting, including a successful campaign to ban dangerous foam furniture, inflammable fabrics, dangerous nursery furniture, the introduction of smoke alarms and the banning of unsafe glass products in the home. We must pay tribute to the London hazards centre for the campaign, and especially to Hugh MacGrillen and his team.
The Bill is a solemn and heartfelt tribute to the victims of toxic and hazardous substances, and the list is endless and growing. It is a poignant reminder to the families of Eric Riley—who, in the words of his wife Ann, was murdered by Lindane; to Keith Pritchett, killed by leukaemia while working for Cuprinol; David Rea, a Rentokil sprayer who is afflicted by leukaemia and is currently in a very serious condition; and to a little child, Llwyd Nicholes, who contracted aplastic anaemia following Rentokil's woodworm treatment to his family home. Some 300 families in the United Kingdom—the list is growing weekly—5,500 in West Germany and thousands more worldwide have been affected by dangerous and toxic substances in the home environment. This Bill is a sign to those families that the fight for justice will continue until such products are banned from the market place.
How can it be that a man or a woman working in industry, commerce or the public service is, in theory, protected from the harmful effects of dangerous and hazardous substances by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, but can leave his or her employment and go into a do-it-yourself store, a chemist or a local garage, or use Yellow Pages and legally purchase a material or substance that can damage the brain, eyes, skin, lungs, liver, kidneys or reproductive organs, and can, in increasing instances, kill?
What other country in the world would treat its children in the way that Britain does? Sheep dip containing Lindane cannot be used in Britain; to do so would be a criminal offence because of its toxicity. Yet Lindane can be administered legally through the prescription service—it is recommended by the National Health Service for use in children's shampoo for the treatment of head lice. It is appalling to think that that substance cannot be used in

sheep dip because of its toxicity, but it can be used on the heads of little children. The shampoos are sold under the trade names of Lorexane and Quellada. I urge the Minister seriously to consider that policy.
The attitude of the manufacturers and suppliers of toxic chemicals is deplorable. They make no effort to establish whether their products are safe. They attempt to discount evidence of toxic effects and they make very little effort to inform the public of the possible consequences of using their chemicals. For example, Peter Bateman—the public relations director of Rentokil—has described Lindane as a life-saving chemical, despite all the evidence of its toxic properties. I ask Mr. Bateman to stop and think for a moment about Ann and Eric Riley. Eric was exposed to Lindane and PCP—pentachlorophenol—in January 1987. He rapidly developed lethargy, depression, pain in the throat and stomach and other symptoms. Eric had an epileptic fit in April 1987 and suffered memory loss and lack of co-ordination. He never fully recovered his health. He had a further fit in January 1988, as a result of which he drowned in the family bath—killed by Lindane.
Mr. Bateman should also think about the grandmother in Skipton who wrote to me only this week. Following an advertisement on Yorkshire Television, she bought a product called Gammexene, which contained Lindane, to dust the tomato plants in her greenhouse. She developed nausea, dizziness, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat and muscular spasms in her legs that persisted for some months. Her grandchildren now refuse to kiss her because they complain that she has been poisoned.
Cuprinol, a company that has advertised extensively on television, has been worried for some time that it has been poisoning its own work force. There are 23 outstanding worker claims against the company. The Transport and General Workers Union is more than concerned about the company and its activities and the risks of Cuprinol's hazardous products. The company has chosen to deny publicly the appalling elects of Lindane, TBTO—tributyl tin oxide—and PCPs, yet secretly it has been withdrawing Lindane from its lethal concoctions. If that is the case, why does it not withdraw old stocks from its suppliers? Will it destroy those stocks and issue a warning to consumers not to purchase products containing Lindane produced prior to the date that the substance was removed from the production process? Will it now accept liability for the damage already done to its customers and its work force?
The performance of contractors that use chemicals is even worse. A survey in the Building Trades Journal of 14 specialists in timber treatments reported staggering incompetence. An editorial in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine summed it up:
Modern management has no incentive for the identification of so far unknown or unproved risk.
Perhaps more importantly, there are no penalties for failing to identify risk. In general, the public have no protection against toxic materials and their use by incompetent or unscrupulous operators.
The complacent attitude of the authorities beggars belief. Only a few months ago at the Dispatch Box the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), said that he did not believe that Lindane and other chemicals were dangerous. Yet that was at a time when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had already banned the use of Lindane in sheep dip. On 10 July, the Health and Safety Executive, in a private meeting with


industry, said that there were problems with the public perception of attitudes towards the introduction and continuation of hazardous substances in the home environment. The HSE pleaded with industry to introduce a system of advice and information leaflets to the public.
That information is to be delayed until at least July 1990 because, in the words of minute No. 5, the Nationwide Association of Preserving Specialists reserved its judgment on this matter. Even in private, the industry was not prepared to admit that things were going wrong and that serious damage was being done to the health of many British people.
The situation is even worse. At present, the regulations are not working effectively. For example, a company called Mould Growth Consultants Limited is selling a product called Wintox to local authorities, and it has been established today that it has never received approval from the Health and Safety Executive or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Those local authorities currently negotiating with that company should withdraw immediately until the company receives approval from the Health and Safety Executive, or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That should be treated as a matter of urgency.
The Bill would give members of the public the right to information. It would establish a regulatory authority to license particular chemicals or processes for domestic use, a code of practice for the protection of consumers against unscrupulous manufacturers, suppliers and contractors and a register of harmful substances, including a proscribed list.
The House should be asking the Government immediately to ban PCPs and Lindane, to phase out organic insecticides and arsenic formulations and to phase in inorganic hone compounds, to rewrite British standards and to give the Health and Safety Executive a greater role. Without that minimal action, deaths in Britain will continue while wood preservative and chemical companies are happy to put profits before the lives of many working people. That private scandal should be exposed and ended forthwith.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Mr. Ian McCartney accordingly presented a Bill to protect the general public in the purchase and application of toxic and hazardous substances within the home environment; to provide a code of conduct for use by consumers and contractors; to set up a register of proscribed substances; and for other purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 216.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Housing Bill

[SECOND DAY]

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 71

DUTY TO KEEP HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Lords amendment: No. 112, in page 78, line 8, after "1926" insert—
(dd) any property which—
(a) with the consent of the Secretary of State given under section 417(1) of the Housing Act 1985;
(b) with the consent of a Minister given under section 50(1)(e) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958; or
(c) by virtue of section 50(2) of that Act (houses vesting in local authority on default of another person)
was brought within the corresponding account kept under Part XIII of the Housing Act 1985 for years beginning before 1st April 1990;

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment Nos. 113 to 118, 119 and amendments (a) to (f), and Lords amendments Nos. 120 to 138, 318 to 327.

Mr. Chope: Part VI and schedule 4 are concerned with revenue finance for local authority housing. It might help the House in its consideration of the various provisions if I set out some of the background and outline our objectives.
The House may know that part VI encapsulates the principles that underlie the Bill—accountability, efficiency, fairness and targeting. The present financial framework in which authorities provide their housing service gives insufficient incentives for efficiency, does not make the best use of public resources, and does not give council tenants a clear view of what their accommodation and the housing service are really worth. Local authorities are required to account for their day-to-day expenditure and income on council housing separately, in the housing revenue account, but they can transfer money freely between their housing revenue account and the rest of their general rate fund. In other words, they can use ratepayers' money to subsidise the housing service, or conversely use surpluses from the housing revenue account to pay for non-housing services. That distorts accountability to tenants and ratepayers, and engenders inefficiency.
The discretion to move resources in and out of the housing revenue account makes it difficult to ensure that the available Exchequer subsidies to council housing are directed to those authorities which most need them. The Government provide about £3 billion of subsidies in support of expenditure on the housing revenue account, but that money is paid through three separate channels


—housing subsidy, rent rebate subsidy, and an element of rate support grant in support of contributions from the rate fund.
Anomalies are almost bound to result from such a system. Some authorities which receive those subsidies can make surpluses which they can use outside the housing revenue account, so Exchequer money for council housing is used for other purposes. The other side of the coin is that fewer resources are then available to target on authorities which need extra help with their housing expenditure.
One further consequence of the present financial framework is that the pattern of council rents around the country does not reflect the variation in the value of council housing or the standard of service provided by different councils in different parts of the country. Rents are based instead on historic values. Council tenants cannot clearly see what their accommodation is worth or whether they are receiving an efficient service, and they are not given the signals that they need to exercise freely the choices we have made available in the housing market.
In that context, we have established our new financial regime, which has three objectives—to tighten the financial discipline of local authorities in the provision of the housing service; to target taxpayer subsidies more effectively; and to encourage more sensible, realistic council rents, which come to reflect the pattern in the value of housing around the country. Those objectives are set in the context of the total level of housing revenue account subsidy, remaining roughly at this year's level—£3 billion per annum.
There are two main elements of the new regime. First, housing revenue accounts will be ring-fenced from the rest of the authorities' funds, preventing ratepayers' money from being used as a discretionary subsidy to council housing, and restricting the use of housing surpluses outside the account.
Secondly, the three existing sources of Exchequer subsidy will be combined to prevent a single housing revenue account subsidy, paid where on our assumptions authorities need additional help to balance the ring-fenced account. In combination, those two elements will help us to achieve our three objectives.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Is it right that private owners who contribute nothing via their rates should be on bungalow waiting lists? A senior citizen has a right to go on the senior citizen list and to be provided with accommodation, but ring fencing makes it extremely difficult for all local authority residents to be treated fairly.

Mr. Chope: I have to disagree. There will not be any inequalities under the new system. There are inequalities under the existing system. It is unreasonable that those who are still waiting for council housing should be contributing, through their rate bills, to the existing council housing revenue account which is there for the benefit of existing tenants. As soon as people on the waiting list become tenants, they will be paying rents which go into the housing revenue account.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that some authorities have not used the rate fund for years to subsidise their council house rents, and that council tenants are paying taxes to subsidise mortgage interest relief?

Mr. Chope: I do not accept that either. The pattern of historic costs of council housing varies significantly. Some housing estates were built largely in the 1930s, and other councils have a majority of estates built in the 1960s and 1970s, so they have higher historic costs. But it is unreasonable that people, just because they are living in properties built in the 1930s, should enjoy lower rents than people living in properties which are more modern. The essence of our proposals is to make the regime much fairer and more equitable.
The majority of the Lords amendments are technical, designed to clarify the accounting treatment of various items within the housing revenue account. A group of amendments to clause 71 and schedule 4 was intended to clear up an anomaly concerning property that is disposed of. The amendments reflect the common-sense view that such property should no longer be counted as housing revenue account property.
5.30 pm
Amendments were also made to clause 78, and to the schedule dealing with the way in which rent rebates are shown in the account, and providing for the cost of discretionary extensions made by the authority to the housing benefit system. That group took in the change made in Commons Committee at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) regarding rebates for war widows and the war disabled.
There were also amendments to the list, in schedule 4, of permitted debits and credits to the account, regarding the relationship between the account and its sub-account, the housing repairs account. Amendments were also made to correct obvious omissions, providing specifically for expenditure from revenue resources on housing capital works, and funds to cover rent arrears.
Two important groups of amendments were made in Committee in another place, both of which were foreshadowed on Report in this House. The first concerns the new residual debt subsidy, or RDS. The RDS provisions in clauses 79 to 81 were introduced to clear up some of the anomalies in the present accounting and subsidy arrangements, which exist when large amounts of an authority's housing stock are disposed of. RDS was to be payable to authorities that disposed of stock for which the receipt did not cover the outstanding debt.
Following development of our proposals on housing revenue account subsidy, and consultation with local authorities and the local authority associations, my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State announced our conclusion that a separate residual debt subsidy would be needed only for the current year, 1989–90, and only in the case of authorities not in receipt of main housing subsidy. Amendments Nos. 121 to 128 amend the provisions to give effect to that change in approach.
The second major amendment to this part of the Bill is amendment No. 119, which is intended to ensure that provisions dealing with the calculation of the main housing revenue account subsidy are in line with our stated policy. The first part concerns the Secretary of State's powers to make assumptions for subsidy purposes about credits or debits in the housing revenue account. Housing revenue account subsidy is to be paid to enable an authority to balance its housing revenue account on certain assumptions about its expenditure and income. The main such assumptions concern the level of rents and expenditure on management and maintenance of the


housing stock. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced on Report our intentions regarding council house rents.

Mr. Clive Soley: In case any hon. Member is not clear on this, may I make it clear that the assumption is intended to give the Government an opportunity to set rent levels that they believe should be set throughout the country?

Mr. Chope: Not at all. The Government are saying loud and clear that it will still be for individual local authorities to decide rent levels. We are also saying, however, that there should be a fairer system of subsidy, and the new system will be much fairer than the existing one.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The Minister has said that he intends to clarify the assumptions. A letter from his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), to Manchester city council states:
To the extent that the repairs capitalised were of a normal day-to-day nature, this should be reflected progressively in the M and M allowance … in the new HRA Subsidy.
Following yet another change by the Department of the Environment, Manchester, for example, will lose £20 million in subsidy because of the change in treatment of capitalised repairs. That means that rents will have to rise by £10·50 just to stand still. Can the Minister explain why his Department continually changes the subsidy rules, why capitalised repairs are being treated differently and why commitments given by his predecessor have been changed, to the detriment of Manchester's rentpayers?

Mr. Chope: I was intending to deal specifically with capitalised repairs when we reached an amendment on the subject tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Let me say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), however, that, if he reads the consultation document, he will see that Manchester benefits greatly from the new system. Under our proposed system, it is deemed to need the minimum increase of 95p a week, whereas, under the existing system, this year's assumed increase is £1·95 a week.
I shall deal with the issue of capitalised repairs in more detail later. The main point is, however, that Manchester has been spending a good deal on capitalised repairs that were not truly capitalised: in other words, it was spending money on decorating and routine maintenance that no sensible person would regard as expenditure that could properly be capitalised. If Manchester continues to do that, it will not be able to use capital moneys for such purposes. Under the new system, however, it will be able to capitalise genuine capital repairs, as it has been able to do in the past.

Mr. Soley: The Minister has confirmed what I said a few moments ago: in effect, the Government will determine rent levels. As is known by every Conservative councillor in the Association of District Councils, and by every Labour councillor throughout the land, the Minister is deciding—to use his words—what is sensible. Unfortunately, he is the only person who agrees with his definition of "sensible"; none of the Conservative or Labour councillors in the ADC agrees with it. Why is the Minister the only sensible person around?

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for accepting that I am sensible, but I do not regard myself as

the only person to take what I consider the sensible view that capital moneys should not be spent on routine house decoration, and that ordinary revenue income should be used for that kind of revenue expenditure. My view is that capital expenditure should be incurred on capital assets: that means truly capitalised repairs that are in the nature of either major long-term maintenance that would probably be incurred only every 30 years, or other capital improvements.
That, I think, is the view that most accountants would advise us to take, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it. I know that his authority in Hammersmith has interpreted "capital repairs" very liberally. My Labour-controlled authority in Southampton, however, has taken my view, that it would be wrong to incur capital expenditure on what should normally be revenue items.

Mr. Soley: I thank the Minister for giving way again: he is very generous with his time.
Is it not a fact that almost all industries would think it appropriate to use capital moneys for revenue purposes at times? If the Minister sold his house and moved into a cheaper one, he might well use some of the capital accumulated from the sale to repair and renovate the new house. That is a very normal thing to do. In the words of the Prime Minister, it is the normal everyday economics of the family.

Mr. Chope: No, it is not. I think that responsible authorities would say that, when public money is involved, existing tenants should pay for existing decoration carried out in their flats and houses, and that the cost should not be a burden on successive generations. For that is effectively what is happening: if capital moneys are used to carry out today's routine decoration, debt will be incurred on which interest must be paid by generations of successor tenants.

Mr. Soley: The Minister has just referred to "any responsible authority." Does he therefore think that the Association of District Councils, which agrees with me, not with him, is irresponsible?

Mr. Chope: If and in so far as authorities have used capital moneys for revenue purposes in the way that I have described, I would say that that was ill advised. It will certainly not be possible to do that under the new system.

Mr. Soley: That is the Minister's view.

Mr. Chope: Yes. In my view, it is irresponsible. That is the view of many people in local government.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Manchester found that it was more economical to have programmed repairs—for example, the replacement of rotting window frames and the repainting of houses on a massive estate programme. Would that come under the heading of capital expenditure?

Mr. Chope: What could be described as the cyclical painting of estates every three, five or seven years, depending on the area, is an ordinary revenue item. If one wanted to replace windows by means of a major replacement programme which would only be necessary every 20 or 30 years, that would be a legitimate item to


capitalise. That is the distinction to be drawn between ordinary expenditure items and items that can properly be capitalised and upon which capital resources can be spent.
Under the rent guideline system that we are introducing, we start by assuming a national total of rent income for the year. Our proposal for next year is that this should reflect an increase of 5 per cent. in real terms, plus 5 per cent. for inflation. That is exactly the same increase as we have assumed in the existing subsidy system for each of the last two years.
The net result of the rent proposals is that the proposed guideline increase is nowhere less than 95p and nowhere more than £4·50. Of 366 local housing authorities in England, 66 receive the maximum guideline increase, 170 receive the minimum increase and the remaining 130 fall somewhere between the two. For almost one half of all local authorities, there will be a guideline rent increase of less than the national inflation figure. I am prepared to guarantee that that is a figure and a fact to which Opposition Members will not draw attention.
The proposals are fair and reasonable. They will start the process of encouraging a more logical pattern of rents which will reflect the true variation in the valuation of property. They will also ensure that rents do not move out of the reach of ordinary people. They certainly do not reflect the dramatic claims made by the Opposition at Report.
While discussing the subsidy calculation and the proposals made on 23 October, it might be helpful if I were to say a few words about the other main assumption in the subsidy calculation—the allowance that we shall be making for expenditure on management and the maintenance of the stock. Our proposed assumption is that each authority will increase its spending by 5 per cent. to take account of inflation, plus an increase of 3 per cent. in real terms. That should enable all authorities to provide a good standard of day-to-day maintenance. The proposal, as with all the other elements of subsidy, is now open to consultation. The authorities have until 4 December to submit their comments.

Mr. Soley: My immediate response is that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. I have never before heard such an incredibly blind view of the housing crisis, not least the crisis over rents. The Minister knows that what he has said about rents is only a very small part of the picture. Rents will increase dramatically.
The Government have not referred to the extent of the housing crisis which affects local authority tenants, housing association tenants and private tenants. This wide-ranging group of amendments provides us with an opportunity to debate both the housing revenue account and homelessness. Some local authorities will not be required to keep a housing revenue account, which raises the issue of what will happen to the homeless. The amendments also provide us with an opportunity to discuss rent arrears and rent levels.
One would have thought, from what the Minister said, that there is no problem. The reason that I was so anxious to intervene during his speech was to use for his benefit the Association of District Councils' evidence. That is not a Labour-controlled organisation; it is almost solidly

Conservative controlled. When I spoke at a conference of the association in the Minister's constituency, Southampton, I received overwhelming support from Conservative councillors when I said that in the Labour party's view the Secretary of State does not have the right to take away the money that they have gained from capital receipts—from selling council houses—and make them use it to repay debts, although they want to use it to repair, renovate and rebuild the housing stock. I was cheered when I said that, so I say to the Minister, simply in terms of his own political survival, that he ought to be wondering why it is that he is so totally isolated and why it is that he is the only one who knows what a sensible rent is.
The Government have consistently refused to tell us what a fair rent is. At first they referred constantly to market rents, but when market rents became a little embarrassing, because they were increasing so rapidly, we began to hear about affordable rents and low rents. Nowhere have the Government referred to what they think rent levels should be in the local authority sector, the housing association sector or the private sector. Such is the extent of the housing crisis that the Government cannot bring themselves to face either the purchase sector problem or the rented sector problem.
That is why the Minister who, we are told, is responsible for housing, although I sometimes doubt it—the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—chose not to speak about mortgage interest rate rises when he addressed his own party conference. Mortgage interest rates have no effect, apparently, on the housing problem, yet we know that they are hitting people badly if they are trying to buy for the first time or if they are trying to sell and buy another house. They are also having a grossly distorting effect on the housing market because of the combination of house price inflation over a number of years—which will resume again in due course—and a distorted subsidy system, brought about by the cut in subsidy to the rented sector. It is that which has created the chaos that the Government have inherited.
As there is now a housing crisis, the Government have decided that they had better not have a Minister for Housing. We were told initially that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was going to be the Minister for Housing. Then we discovered that he was in charge of water privatisation. However, we were told that when he had finished privatising water he would deal with housing. When the hon. and learned Gentleman has finished with water and deals with housing, which presumably will be some time in the new year, what the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) will know for sure is that his position is unassailable. He will no longer be what he is supposed to be now, I assume—the Minister for Housing, although he never actually confesses to being the Minister for Housing.

Mr. John Battle: Will the real Minister for Housing stand up?

Mr. Soley: Yes, will he do so? In a way it is farcical, but really it is very serious. The major housing crisis that we face is due to a lack of affordable accommodation either for rent or for sale in both urban and rural areas, but we do not have a Minister for Housing to deal with it. There is not even a recognition of the problem.

Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new Ministers and welcoming them to their various responsibilities? Will he also point out to them that they are respectively the twelfth and thirteenth holders of those posts since 1979? Will my hon. Friend also join me in saying that if we hold a similar debate on a similar Bill in 12 months time, it is almost certain that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will not be sitting on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is quite right. A number of the Ministers who passed through while I have been doing this job were in post for only 12 months. To be fair, one of the better Ministers held his post for only 12 months. Because he realised the seriousness of the problem and decided to do something about it, he was moved.
To put the problem in context, rural areas of England which did not have a housing problem before now have one. Sons and daughters of people who live in good housing in villages in the south of England suddenly find that they cannot afford to buy or rent. People who have lived in the area for a long time, the people who drive the trains, teach in the schools or nurse in the local hospitals cannot afford to buy or rent. House price inflation has pushed house prices out of their range, and rents are going up to market levels and are therefore unaffordable. In Dorset, an average family house costs about £90,000, a market rent is approximately £100 a week and the average male unskilled wage in that area is £90 per week. It is impossible to square the equation.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the south, but the problem is just as bad in many parts of the north. In my constituency of High Peak there are many villages where families who have lived there for many generations can no longer afford to buy or rent. In most of the villages and towns there is a desperate shortage of rented accommodation and council housing and there are no private-sector houses that ordinary people can afford.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I am not saying that the problem occurs only in the south, but the picture is more extreme in the south because house price inflation has had a much more dramatic effect there, for many reasons of which we are all aware. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in some areas of Yorkshire the figures are similar to those in the south, and that must apply to many other areas.
In addition to that general pain is something that I never thought I would live to see in my own country—teenage children sitting in our streets with cardboard signs saying, "Homeless and hungry". They are under 18 and they have nowhere to go. To have a Minister, whether or not he is responsible for housing, who is so blind to that appalling problem that he can introduce a Bill that not only does nothing about it, but because of certain conditions will prevent local authorities from doing something about it, is absolutely disgraceful. I cannot face seeing many more youngsters sitting homeless and hungry in the street.
There was a time when one did not give money to people who were begging because one knew that there was a support system. One could stop and talk to them and persuade them to go to their local DSS office or to

emergency night shelters. During the last years of the Labour Government and in the early 1980s, even in London one could always get someone a roof over their head. Nowadays one cannot do that. That is why increasing numbers of the public, myself included, give money without asking questions because the housing crisis is so desperate. It is one of the worst examples of the typical Tory picture of private affluence and public squalor. Sadly, that public squalor is endured by the most vulnerable people. The Centre Point report shows that about one third of those youngsters have come out of care—the care that we operate in the Dickensian Conservative 1980s where apparently it is all right to leave kids out in the streets when they are no longer the responsibility of the local authority. They drift around and are likely to be drawn into crime, drug abuse and alcohol abuse which are strongly associated with homelessness.
Rent levels are central to much of our debate. The Government should face many of the problems concerning rent. They admit that they are trying to push up council rents, although they argue about how fast and how far. However, they rarely recognise or admit that they have dramatically pushed up housing association and private sector rents, so there is no escape. Some Conservative and other councils consider that if they transfer council housing to housing associations or private landlords somehow people will be safeguarded from rent increases. That is not true. Last year housing association rents increased by an average of 24 per cent. Market rents in the private sector are leaping ahead to such an extent that it is difficult to predict how high they will rise. My judgment is that the market rate will approximate towards what the property would fetch if it were sold and the owner invested the money and took a return on it. The interest rate that they would get would be roughly the market rent. That is why market rents are going through the roof.
Just to make that appalling picture worse, the Government have introduced capital value rents. On 1 April 1990 the Government will bring in a new system of calculating rates based on the capital value of the property. The Ministers occasionally say that Labour's alternative to the poll tax includes an element of capital values. Our system would be fully rebatable, but there is no rebate on the capital value basis that they are using to set rent levels.

Mr. Chope: To bring the debate closer to the hon. Gentleman's home territory, does he support and approve of the rent policy in the Labour-controlled London borough of Hammersmith, where the average rent last year was £35·8 and where there has already been an increase this year far in excess of those prevailing in other local authority areas? Does he recognise that, whatever the level of rent, people are eligible for rent rebates? Under the existing system and under the new system there will be no alteration in rent rebate entitlements.

Mr. Soley: I agree entirely with my council when it says that it is being forced to increase rents by a Government who have progressively cut the money that goes to every local authority, regardless of whether it is controlled by the Labour party, the Tory party, the Liberal party or anything else. That is what is forcing up rents. There is always a case for increasing rents at sensible levels—using my definition of sensible and not the Minister's—but what


is not acceptable is that in recent years the Government have removed the subsidy from the rented sector so that people are forced to pay more.
The Minister says that housing benefit is available, but it has been cut eight times by the Government, to the extent that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have constituents who have lost up to £10 a week in benefit. That is why the Government had to introduce phased transitional arrangements.
Still worse, late at night, the Government introduced that wicked Act in which they cut the benefit of people who have a spare room. If someone has a two-bedroomed home and a member of his family dies or moves out that person will suddenly lose housing benefit because he has a spare room. The Minister should try telling people that they will lose mortgage income tax relief if they have a spare room. How many spare rooms does the Minister have and how much mortgage tax relief does he get? If he thinks that it is fair that he gets mortgage income tax relief on his spare room, he should conclude that people in rented accommodation with a spare room should also receive some subsidy.

Mr. Battle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's statement that the Bill proposes no changes in housing benefit was quite incredible? I know that the Minister was not on the Committee considering the Bill, but he might have had the courtesy of reading the reports of its proceedings before he spoke. It is absolutely plain that one of the most iniquitous proposals in the Bill is the suggestion that those paying rent who are not on benefit will end up paying the difference in housing benefit when the subsidy is withdrawn from the DSS. That is in the Bill.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was going to mention that in due course, but I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will do so. What is happening is quite wicked because the poor will subsidise the very poor. I do not know why the Minister is shaking his head. His predecessor accepted that the aim was for those people receiving benefit to be paid in certain circumstances—there will be many cases in local authorities—by people who were not receiving benefit. The next door neighbour not receiving housing benefit, but who has a job, will be subsidising in his rent level the housing benefit being paid to the person next door. It will not be paid centrally in the way that it used to be. It is incredible that the Minister is not aware of that.

6 pm

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the position. Under the new ring-fenced housing revenue accounts money from the taxpayer—the taxpayers' subsidy—will be used to meet the needs that exist. For example, if there is a need for more housing benefit to be paid out of that ring-fenced account by a given local authority because of the needs of its tenants, all things being equal, that will be compensated for by increased subsidy. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that the poor tenants will be subsidising the even poorer.

Mr. Soley: Before he reads the message being passed to him by the civil servants, will the Minister give the House a guarantee that if any local authority finds itself in a

position where the people receiving housing benefit are having that benefit paid for by other tenants it will receive an increase in subsidy so that that will not have to happen?

Mr. Chope: This is the first time that I have debated across the Chamber with the hon. Gentleman and I have come to the conclusion that he is selective in his choice of examples. He said that Government support for Hammersmith and Fulham has been cut causing rent increases. Does he accept that in 1986–87 housing subsidy in Hammersmith and Fulham was £10·5 million and in the current year it is £21·6 million? It has more than doubled but the hon. Gentleman was asserting that the Government have cut support to Hammersmith and Fulham. If he cannot get his facts right concerning his own local authority, I cannot take him seriously.

Mr. Soley: I will deal with both points. The Minister used 1987 as an example. I too would choose that year as an example. However, we are worried about the past 10 years during which time the Government cut money to local authorities by about £24 billion. Hammersmith and Fulham has borne more than its fair share of cuts, even when it was under Conservative control.
I thought that the Minister was going to give the House the commitment for which I asked. He said that I was being selective and misleading but I know that he would not want me to mislead the House. If I find an example of a local authority where housing benefit is being paid to some tenants and that benefit is being paid for by other tenants through the rents, will he give a commitment that he will ensure Exchequer subsidy to prevent that happening? Can we have a straight answer to that question because every local authority whether Labour or Tory is in that position?

Mr. Chope: We will ensure that where an authority cannot raise sufficient income to cover all the costs in its housing revenue account, including the cost of rebates, subsidy will be paid to make up the shortfall. There is no question of tenants having to pay more because of an increase in the rebates bill. If the cost of rebates increases, subsidy will increase to meet the extra costs. That subsidy should go to the authorities that need it and not to cover costs that authorities can meet for themselves. The closer we stick to that basic principle the more we can do to assist in meeting real needs. The further we stray from it, the more we will leave real needs unsatisfied. Perhaps that is what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Soley: The Minister is avoiding the change in the wording. Clearly he is not familiar with the Bill. Clause 78(1) of the pre-amended Bill says:
In subsection (2) of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986 (housing benefit finance), for the words 'total housing benefit' there shall be substituted the words 'relevant benefit' and there shall be added at the end the words 'and in this subsection "relevant benefit" means total housing benefit excluding, in the case of a local authority in England and Wales, any Housing Revenue Account rebates granted by them'.
Will the Minister give the House a commitment that he will ensure that any local authority finding itself in the position which I have described and which is set out in the Bill will receive the subsidy that the Minister said it should receive? Will the Minister answer yes or no?

Mr. Chope: I have set out the position clearly. The hon. Gentleman is mischievously trying to suggest that where a


local authority is in need, tenants will have to pay more because of an increase in the rebates bill. He may not find that he has much material in the Labour party's policies on housing but he ought to get our policies right and understand them before he criticises them.

Mr. Soley: Getting it right involves reading the Government's clause, which I have just done. The Minister's position will be unassailable much sooner than I thought. He will not last long in the job if he makes such gaffs. It will not be missed that the Minister said that there would be subsidy from the taxpayer to ensure that the poor did not subsidise the poorest and then retreated to the position that he now holds.
Capital value rents will force considerable rent rises. The Minister skated over that lightly saying that the average rent rise would be quite low. I cannot remember the figure he used, but I think that he said it would be about 95p minimum and £4·50 maximum. The Minister could use this point against me if he wanted but the places worst hurt will be the southern areas of Britain. One of the people most hurt would be the chairman of the Conservative party—the man who encourages the team approach. The man in Mole Valley will not be clobbered on the poll tax but every one of his council tenants will have to pay an increase of £4·50 a week in rent.
Can the Minister try to understand what it is like to live on the average wage of an unskilled person which is about £100 a week and then have to pay a rent increase of £4·50 per week? Can he envisage a situation where, because of housing benefit tapers and cut-offs, many people will not receive any benefit towards that, or if they do, it will be minimal benefit? What will the Minister say to the tenants in many Conservative areas in the south who next year will face rent increases of up to £4·50? He could tell them to do what they are doing in Canterbury or Elmbridge, which is to abandon council housing altogether and hand it over to a housing association where tenants can expect another massive rent increase. The increase was 24 per cent. last year and it will be high again next year, although at present it is hard to predict just how high it will be.
There is also the question of capitalised repairs. Council rent levels are further threatened by the plan to stop local authorities spending capital receipts on repairs. In the past that has been accepted as entirely legitimate by the Department of the Environment. All of a sudden, the Minister has discovered that that is not what accountants would do. In fact, it is what accountants do in private business, in the public sector or in everyday life. It is a normal, sensible way of managing one's affairs. That is why I can pray in aid Lady Anson and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils and most of the other Conservative authorities which are not in the ADC. All of them agree with me that they should be able to use the money that they have accumulated to meet their repair and renovation expenses.
I am not alone in saying that the anxiety that is being caused to tenants is unacceptable. I have a cutting from the Hemel Hempstead Herald and Post about Dacorum council, another Tory-controlled authority. It states:
tenants could face huge rent increases if the Government ties levels to the local private housing market.
Chairman of the borough council's Housing Committee"—
a Conservative, of course—

Councillor Peter Benton, told the Herald and Post he is waiting 'quite anxiously' for information on new Government orders.
'It really could he a muddle of things. The point is that we are already an efficient council with our housing stock of 15,000 homes,' said Councillor Benton.
'This is just another step in reducing our responsibility and one can only regret that.'
'They are figures'"—
I do not know whether I entirely agree with this—
'drawn up by bald-headed civil servants eating their salmon sandwiches in the Department of the Environment in Marsham street'.
I have not seen many bald-headed civil servants eating salmon sandwiches in the Department of the Environment, but that is what councillor Benton thinks.
He went on to state:
'it will be an order of the Government"—
that is absolutely right—
which the council can do nothing about'.
I shall offer the Minister an opportunity to intervene. He thinks that there is everything that he can do about it. Will he give an assurance to the Conservative leader of Dacorum council that he will ensure he gives it sufficient subsidy so that it need not do what councillor Benton thinks it must do?

Mr. Chope: Dacorum council is Conservative-controlled. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Mole Valley. He seems to think that it is wrong for a political party to impose fairer policies which may have an impact upon its supporters in certain areas. The Government do not share the hon. Gentleman's cynical view of politics. Last year, in Mole Valley, average rents were £19·74, and in Dacorum they were £18·99. There is plenty of scope for reasonable rent increases in those areas, having regard to the fact that, in the hon. Gentleman's own borough of Hammersmith, average rents were £35·88 last year. Also, this year in Haringey, which most hon. Members regard as a borough with considerable needs, rents increased not by £4·50 but by two tranches of £4·50—one in the spring and one in October.

Mr. Soley: Let me try to help the Minister, as he is clearly getting into some difficulty. He should sit back and relax and imagine that everything that I say to him is designed to help him out of a hole—funnily enough, it is. He should abandon his absurd approach to setting rents and should sit down with his officials—he had better bring in one of his senior friends or he will quickly find himself out of a job—and start asking, "What is an affordable rent?" He could start from the position that many people in the housing movement have taken. If people are spending more than 20 per cent. of their net disposable income on rent or housing costs generally, they will quickly get into serious economic trouble.
I do not expect the Minister to say that 20 per cent. of one's net disposable income is a satisfactory rent level. It is not—it is too high. That percentage should be the highest. However, we know that, increasingly, it is the case for council tenants, housing association tenants and, above all, private sector tenants. Many tenants in housing associations, the private sector and, increasingly, in the council sector, are paying between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of their net disposable income on housing costs.
If the Minister bought a house and mortgaged himself up to the hilt, he would be terribly worried if he found himself paying 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of his net disposable revenue on housing costs for more than a year


or two. He knows that he could not do it. If one cannot do that on a Minister's salary, I am damn sure that one cannot do it on the salary of a skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled person. I implore the Minister to give up the daft argument that he is getting himself into about whether councils can set levels. We all know that they cannot. We know that the Government have been centralising local authority powers like mad. The issue is not just about that. It is about what people can pay for rent and the subsidy that is being taken from them in the private sector, the housing association sector and the council sector.
Unless the Minister gets this matter right, he must soon face up to the fact that not only will more people be pushed into homelessness and economic despair because they cannot afford their rents, but, setting the personal problem aside, the economic effects will be disastrous. Not only in London but in many other parts of the country now employers cannot find employees in areas in which housing costs are high.
6.15 pm
Yesterday, on the Radio 4 "Today" programme, the Secretary of State for Education and Science volunteered the information—I did not prime him to say it—that the Government cannot recruit and retain teachers because housing costs are too high. If Conservatives—councillors and Ministers alike—are saying that, there must be something seriously wrong. If I cannot convince the Minister that this matter is deadly serious by referring to kids in the streets with their "homeless and hungry" signs or by getting him to examine mortgage rates and so on, what on earth can I do to convince him?
Matters have been made worse by what the Government are trying to do. They set out their proposals in their consultation paper of 23 October. It states:
It is essential therefore that the introduction of the new system should not of itself introduce any sharp change in the level of rents or management and maintenance spending in any individual authority … The effect of these proposals will be to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime.
The new regime involves rent increases of up to 173 per cent. in some areas, again including Mole Valley. The document went on:
For the tenant, the immediate effect should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if the current system had remained in force.
The Minister should tell that to the tenant in Mole Valley when he pays £4·50 a week extra. The commitment was known as the soft landing. If that is a soft landing, and if the economy is also in for a soft landing, we had better emigrate before it is too late.

Mr. Chope: One question is at the root of the hon. Gentleman's argument. If rents of £35·88 in Hammersmith are affordable, why must we permit Mole Valley rents to go up by no more than £1·95 a week? Why should Mole Valley rents of £19·74 not be allowed to increase so that they are more in line with costs in that area?

Mr. Soley: Apart from capital values, which are relevant, the real problem is that the Government are embroiled in a situation in which the housing subsidy system is now chaotic. They have allowed the purchase sector, subsidy to expand and expand—not only through income tax relief but through discount sales and so on—at the same time as they cut the subsidy to the rented

sector. That distorts the housing market to the extent that there is enormous house price inflation and people are unable to buy. Because the Government have moved literally 1·2 million homes out of the rented sector into the purchase sector, and because the building of new premises has come to a grinding halt because of interest rates, there is nothing to replace the rented sector. That is why people cannot find anywhere to rent or to buy. It is basic economics—supply and demand. The Government do not seem to understand those basic mechanisms.
The effect of the proposals of 23 October is that 66 authorities will have an assumed rent increase of £4·50—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—170 authorities at the minimum rate of 95p, and the rest will be somewhere in between. The £4·50 increases are overwhelmingly in London and the south-east, where rents are already higher than in the rest of the country. On 24 October, the then Minister, Lord Caithness—another one who lasted only a short time; some people did not notice his departure, let alone his arrival—tried to pretend that the Government had achieved a soft landing. Indeed, they said that they had already achieved a soft landing, so if the £4·50 was still to come, presumably that is where one would hit the barrier. Lord Caithness said that the average assumed increase was £2·08—that is about 10 per cent. in cash terms—and was because so many authorities, especially in the north, had increases of 95p—below the rate of inflation.
However, that is not the whole picture. It was stated that the new system should not
of itself introduce any sharp changes in rents … in any individual authority.
However, that is clearly what it has done. In terms of that commitment, the average figure is irrelevant. The Minister should look at the figure of £4·50. The Government's proposals also stated:
for the tenant the immediate effect should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if the current system had remained in force".
The Minister should tell that to the Mole Valley tenants and to those in the other 65 authorities. The average is irrelevant to tenants in Hackney, Lambeth, Mole Valley or Cambridge. What matters to them is the amount by which the provisions will affect them. The figure of £4·50 for those 66 authorities is over 50 per cent. higher than any determination that has ever been made under the existing system. Even if the 1981–82 figure of £2·95 is increased to allow for inflation, it is still only an increase in 1990–91 prices of £4·41. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that in due course.
I turn now to the issue of bad debts and rent arrears and to Lords amendment No. 320. I refer to the Minister's earlier remarks about the subsidy available. Local authority tenants are having increasing difficulty in paying their rents. Although local authorities generally are devising new forms of management systems to make it easier for tenants, if a person's rent is taking an increasing amount of net disposable income, that person will get into arrears.
I should like the Minister to respond to my next point when he replies to the debate. The Audit Commission is about to issue a report, the contents of which are well known, demonstrating that there has been a massive increase in rent arrears in virtually all local authorities. The Audit Commission is equally clear about the cause. It states that the cause is the housing benefits cuts. Will the


Minister address himself to the challenge that the Audit Commission is putting to this House—and especially to the Government—and do something to prevent rent arrears from escalating in local authorities across the country because of the housing benefit cuts rightly identified by the Audit Commission and about which many of my hon. Friends have known for ages?
We shall seek to divide the House on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 119, which deals with the repair and renovation issue.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I want to point out to him that, while he was commenting on the dramatic increase in rent arrears following the housing benefit changes, the Minister was shaking his head in disagreement. I agree that it is his own head—and he is welcome to it because it is not a particularly clever or pretty one—but the fact is that all the evidence is so overwhelming that I cannot understand why the Minister is in dispute. I can give him the figures for my own London borough of Newham, where arrears increased by 30 per cent.—in line with the average increase in arrears throughout the country, in both Tory and Labour authorities. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Minister does not seem able to understand the facts?

Mr. Soley: What I can explain to my hon. Friend, who rightly pointed out that it is the Minister's head and he is entitled to shake it if he wants, is that the reason the Minister shook his head is that if he had said, "No", it would have appeared in Hansard, whereas the shaking of a head does not often appear in Hansard. If the Minister has not discovered this already, he will discover pretty shortly that what I have said about the Audit Commission is absolutely right.

Mr. Banks: Perhaps the Minister's body was wriggling and shaking while his head stayed still.

Mr. Soley: We shall seek to divide the House on amendment (b) because we do not want any rent increase over and above the highest agreed by the Government in the last three years, which is about £1·95. As I have said, they will increase this year by £4·50 for many people. We shall seek to divide the House because we believe that the increase should be held to a maximum of £1·95, given that the increases that the Government have brought about over the previous eight or nine years have been well above what would normally have been expected by tenants.
I turn now to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 119. As capitalised repairs will increase costs, when setting the Government's prescribed rent levels, I should like the Secretary of State to take their effect into account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said in an intervention, the danger is that if the new capital value rents are taken into account together with the capitalised repairs problem, there is no doubt that several local authorities around the country—again, of all political colours—will face rent increases running into two figures—in other words, of over £10 per week. Furthermore, the authorities will not be able to do much about it. They could stop doing some of the repairs, with all that that implies for a worsening in living conditions and a decline in the housing stock. However, even if they leave some repairs, they cannot ignore them all and will then face rent increases in some areas of over £10 per week.
I am simply asking the Secretary of State to take into account capitalised repairs before setting the rents. The Government's assumed maintenance figure for capitalised repairs may be wrong for 1990–91. Indeed, I am sure that it will be wrong. At this stage I simply want to put on the record the fact that I believe that there will be strong evidence to support that.
I have spoken for longer than I had intended, but as hon. Members will agree, I have taken several interventions. These issues are incredibly important. I end where I began, by saying that we are facing a housing crisis in this country the like of which we have not faced since the end of the second world war. The position is now desperately serious. I pray in aid again the Association of District Councils, which has produced a report entitled "A Time to Take Stock", stating that we need to spend between £36 billion and £50 billion just to maintain the existing stock in good repair or rather to improve its condition. When sentiments such as that come from Conservative organisations which are pleading with the Government to do something, I know that what my hon. Friends and I have been saying for many years is correct.
The housing crisis that is tearing apart the fabric of our society is not confined to the inner cities. It does not just affect the high-priced areas of the south. It is tearing apart the lives and the communities of people in urban and rural parts of Britain, in the north, south, east and west. Its worst form is the homeless child begging in the streets. Its everyday form can be seen in the people who cannot afford to pay their rents or mortgages and who become homeless as a result.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I rise to support the Opposition amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has just delivered what I and many of my hon. Friends regard as an excellent opening to our debate, telling a few truths which, unfortunately, the Government are not necessarily prepared to accept. I have watched the Ministers on the Treasury Bench shaking their heads like nodding toy dogs in the backs of cars. It is a disgrace that they should do that and then simply read out the notes passed to them by the civil servants in the Box when they do not have a clue what this is all about.
All Opposition Members and the majority of people in the country know that costs are increasing alarmingly in every sector of housing. We have all heard about the plight of home owners. The mortgage increases and high interest rates have been given great publicity by the press and many of us are, of course, subject to those increases ourselves. The increases in local authority rents, however, have received little attention. Local authority tenants have faced huge increases over the past few years, yet these have been largely ignored by the press, and even by this House. Housing association tenants and tenants in the private sector have also been badly hit in the past few years. However, I wish to speak about local authority tenants.
6.30 pm
Council rents in England this year have gone up by an average of £1·44 per week, representing an increase of 9·6 per cent. That is bad, but it is not half so bad as what will happen if the part of the Bill with which we are dealing passes unamended into law. Further major increases in council house rents will be inevitable.
In considering the housing revenue account subsidy, I will cite my local authority in the hope that the Minister will reconsider the situation. If the Bill is unamended and the notional housing revenue account turns out to be a minus, the amount in question will have to be paid over to the general rate fund irrespective of whether it equates with the actual revenue housing account. For my local authority of Durham, that will mean about £1 million more, or £2 extra per week per council house tenant. That sum will have to be passed to the general rate fund account or to one of the other accounts mentioned in the Bill. That is daft because one need not be a brilliant accountant to know that the notional account will become £2 million in deficit terms in view of the £1 million that is pushed over and the other £1 million that has to be found to bring the account into credit.
Nowhere in the Bill can I see what should be done with that additional £1 million when it is notionally put into another account. I suppose that it will be used notionally to subsidise the poll tax.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Has my hon. Friend considered, in relation to Durham's housing revenue account, what the effect would be on the interest element if tenants were allowed tax relief in the way that mortgage payers get tax relief on their mortgage interest, whether or not they need that subsidy?

Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I wanted to intervene in the Minister's speech to put that question. The Minister argued that a local authority's general rate fund should not subsidise council house tenants. He asked why the ordinary ratepayer should subsidise council tenants. But does he not also regard tax relief on mortgage interest as a subsidy from the taxpayer to the mortgage payer? If so, will he accept that a council tenant who does not have a mortgage but who pays all his other taxes is contributing to what is, in effect, a subsidy to mortgage payers? Would it not therefore be fair for ratepayers to contribute to a subsidy for council tenants?
As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State can dictatorially control the rents of every local authority. He can control the management functions and, by using the subsidy formula, he can control the quality and range of repairs that local authorities may carry out. There must be safeguards in the use of that power. Under the Bill as drafted, councils will have to decrease the overall service that they provide to their tenants or substantially increase rents. Common sense dictates that a further deterioration of council properties will occur unless council rents are subsidised to the necessary extent.
Does the Minister want to see the nation's local authority housing stock deteriorate? Is it, indeed, his aim to see council houses deteriorate due to lack of money to repair them? If not, and if he believes that authorities should look after their houses adequately and have the necessary funds to do so, he must amend the calculations in the Bill.
I again take my local authority of Durham as an example in considering the issue of capitalised repairs. It is not a large authority. I recall the Minister visiting Durham some years ago and meeting me and fellow councillors in the authority's hospitality room. We shared a drink, which

was coffee; because the drinks have to be paid for out of the rates and it is a prudent local authority, that is all that we are given to drink.
It is estimated that by 1991, £2·335 million will have been channeled into the housing revenue account for capitalised repairs out of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses. But the Bill will prevent capital receipts from being used for capitalised repairs. In future, 25 per cent. of capital receipts will be available for capital work and the other 75 per cent. must go to redeem debt. In other words, 75 per cent. of the capital receipts that some local authorities were using to carry out capitalised repairs will no longer be available to them. If Durham council wants to continue its capitalised repair programme—in other words, if it wishes to do the equivalent amount of work that it planned to do—the money will have to be found from elsewhere, and the only way to raise it will be by raising the rents.
Local authorities have been forced to use their capital receipts for capitalised repairs because their HIP allocations have been cut dramatically over the years. For example, whereas in 1982 Durham received £2·85 million, this year it will receive £1·26 million. That is why Durham and other authorities took the opportunity of using capital receipts to do capitalised repairs. If Durham wishes to maintain the same programme but substitute the sum involved with a rent rise, it will have to increase rents by about £4·70 per week per tenant. Will the Minister cushion such an appalling increase and compensate for the necessary capital allocation? Will he take such matters into account when fixing management and maintenance allowances for subsidy purposes?
The Durham architects department has made substantial profits on contracts in recent years. Those profits have been made even though the department has tendered against private building companies. The department, having won those contracts, has made huge profits for the local authority. In the past, those profits had to be credited to the general rate fund. The city council then transferred it back to the credit of housing repairs in the housing revenue account. In other words, Durham was able to use its direct labour organisation profits to carry out further major housing repairs.
While the Bill was in Committee I wrote to the then Minister to ask him to clarify whether it would still be valid for DLO profits to be used in the housing revenue account. The letter that I received in reply was difficult to understand, but it seemed to say that that practice would remain legitimate after the Bill had been enacted. Having studied the Bill more closely, it appears to me that because of the ring-fencing regulations it will not be valid for those profits to be used, although that had been the impression gained by the local authority and by me.
In 1989–90 about £1·2 million went into the housing revenue account from DLO profits. If my local authority wants to continue its programme of work next year at the same level as this year, council house rents will have to increase by £2·42 per week per tenant. I hope that the Minister will clarify this. If he cannot do so tonight, I hope that he will write to me. Such clarification is vital to Durham city council and I suspect that it is equally important to many other local authorities which use their DLO profits in that way.
The rent rebate subsidy takes up part of the housing revenue account. Admittedly, at the moment 97 per cent. of that subsidy is paid by the Government and only 3 per


cent. comes from the general rate fund. Because of the ring-fencing regulations, however, the authority will have to find the extra 3 per cent. as it will no longer be lawful to take it from the general fund. That does not represent a large amount of money in Durham—it is probably chicken feed to the majority of local authorities—but it does amount to £130,000, and to raise that money in the future the council will have to increase the rent paid by council house tenants by 26p per week.
Given the possible increases that may be incurred as a result of the Bill, what will the proposed changes mean to tenants living in Durham? If the local authority wants to carry on with the work that it has undertaken for the past few years, rents will have to increase by £9·30 per week—and that does not take into account any increase for inflation or anything else. Rents will have to increase by 45 per cent. next year merely to allow the level of repairs to stand still. I do not believe that that is fair and I am sure that even Ministers in the present Government would not regard it as fair. One must remember that that rent rise would not take into account any general increase in rents—it would be needed just to do the work necessary to stand still. When calculating the housing revenue account subsidy the Minister must take into account the likely changes that will result from his decisions. Failure to do that will be a disaster for my local authority and for the majority of council house tenants.
6.45 pm
I doubt that local authorities will increase their rents by 50 per cent.—tenants could not afford to pay such an increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already explained what a person expects to pay for his housing out of his general income. It is simply not on to increase council house rents by 50 per cent. Without such increases, however, repair programmes will be slashed. Properties will deteriorate and fall into further disrepair. The Minister may question whether such repairs need to be done in the first place. A recent survey conducted in my local authority showed that properties needed about £66 million to be spent on them to bring them up to a reasonable standard. The amount of money that needs to be spent throughout the country to bring all local authority housing up to a reasonable standard of repair runs into billions. That money must be spent and I hope that the Government will take that into account when considering the housing revenue account calculations.
The Government encouraged local authorities to use their capital receipts for repairs and, having done so, it is not right for them to leave those authorities in the lurch. Local authorities acted in good faith, they took the advice of the Government and they used their capital receipts to carry out capitalised repairs. The Government now intend to withdraw that money. The Government have said that rents will not rise as a result of the Bill, but we all know that that is a ludicrous claim. The Minister may give us the information that is passed to him from the officials' Box, but we all know that council house rents will rise steeply unless he changes the method by which he calculates the housing subsidy.
I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of a Department of the Environment consultative paper issued on 27 July 1988 which said:
It is essential therefore that the introduction of the new system should not of itself introduce any sharp change in the level of rents or management and maintenance spending in any individual authority … The effect of these proposals will

be to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. For the tenant, the immediate effect should be indistinguishable from what would have happened if the current system had remained in force.
If the Bill goes through unamended, the new system will be far from indistinguishable from the present system. I plead with the Minister to consider the calculations to ensure that local authorities are given subsidies for their housing revenue accounts to enable them to carry out the necessary work as that will ensure that tenants do not face astronomical rent increases to pay for that work to be done.

Mr. George Howarth: I recommend that the newly appointed Ministers should look at the statements on housing policy made by their predecessors since 1979. I spent some time doing just that. It is an increasingly interesting exercise as one realises that there has been a common thread running through Government policy which brings us to what we are discussing today: what is a sensible rent to expect people to pay for their council house or flat? I want to consider what the Government's housing legislation has amounted to since 1979.
No Conservative Member would deny that the Government originally had only one housing policy. They believed in universal owner-occupation. They thought that there was only one way in which the market could resolve the problems that people faced in finding suitable housing, and that was through owner-occupation. That policy led to the Housing Act 1980, which conferred on sitting tenants the right to buy with discounts according to the length of time that they had been tenants.
The way in which the Government responded to the effects of the Housing Act 1980 was very interesting. They did not stop by giving council tenants the right to purchase their properties with discounts relating to the time that that person had been a tenant. Between 1981 and 1983, when he was a Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) regularly appeared at the Dispatch Box, with other Ministers, to say that he expected local authorities to introduce rent increases of £2·50, and over three or four years that increased to more than £6. That was no accident. It occurred because the Government regressively withdrew subsidies to local authorities which would have allowed them to cushion the effects of rent increases.
For the first time we saw the carrot-and-stick approach which the Government have consistently adopted towards housing policy. Indeed, that is the only consistent thing that the Government have done in housing in their entire 10 years in office. The carrot was the opportunity to exercise the right to buy; the stick was that if a tenant did not exercise that right, he would inevitably face increasing rent bills. As a consequence, it would eventually become sensible, to use the Minister's words, to exercise the right to buy instead of remaining a tenant.
To some extent, in the Government's terms, the right-to-buy policy was a success. Perhaps against their initial inclination, many people decided that it made financial good sense to purchase their council houses. Some people in London made huge profits. On a day-to-day budgeting basis, over five or 10 years, it probably made sense for many people to cut their outgoings in rent by purchasing their council homes because their rents would inevitably overtake what they would be expending in mortgage payments had they purchased the council house with a discount.

Mr. Pike: There is another aspect to the stick approach. In addition to direct subsidy to housing, local authorities had to consider grant-related expenditure housing factor E7. If they had not taken account of the kind of increase which the Government were advocating, they were penalised through factor E7. The stick was double edged.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My hon. Friend and I have both worked in local authorities. I was a chairman of a local authority housing committee and I know that such factors played a major part in assessing rent increase limits. Year after year it became depressingly repetitive having to make those calculations. Cuts in rate support grant and withdrawal of subsidies in general made it almost impossible to avoid large rent increases.
By the mid-1980s, the Government's housing policy seemed to be failing. It was not failing because they had not succeeded in selling council houses; they succeeded in doing that on a large scale. It failed for other reasons. Economists such as Professor Mintford concluded that the lack of opportunity to rent property was acting as a brake on the mobility of labour.
That meant that young people in my constituency, where we still have a major unemployment problem, could not come to London or the south-east to find jobs because they had nowhere to stay. I will not go into Professor Mintford's recommendations to the Government in detail. Perhaps the Minister will read over those recommendations and assimilate them. The major thrust of Professor Mintford's argument was that there was a need for rented property, certainly in the south-east and London.
Professor Mintford has a peculiar brand of economics. He considered the problems of Merseyside and decided that there was too much of it. The logical solution therefore was to remove half of it. I am not sure which side of the Mersey he had in mind, but—

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments is so far as they relate to the Lords amendments. It is very interesting to hear his general views on the Government's housing policy. However, is not his contribution more of a Second Reading speech than one specifically related to the amendments under discussion?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is for me to judge. If the hon. Gentleman looks at this group of amendments, he will see that they cover a wide range of issues.

Mr. Howarth: As usual, the impatience of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) overtakes his intellectual gift for following the debate. I have no difficulty in following his point of order, and I am sure that at the appropriate time he will intervene and make his own comments which, as usual, will be well wide of the mark.
Until Professor Mintford and others rode on to the housing scene, the Government had only one panacea—owner-occupation. Professor Mintford believed that the revival of the private rented sector—and he suggested direct incentives for that from central Government—was the key to providing the accommodation needed in London and the south-east to bring the unemployed down from the north from constituencies like mine to work in Wimpy bars in London and rent in the private sector.
Professor Mintford's suggestion about developing the private rented sector led to the Housing Act 1988. Many of us spent three and a half months trying to fathom out the logic of that Act. It was obvious that the Government accepted the suggestions of Professor Mintford and others that there was a need for rented accommodation, and they decided to create that through the private rented sector.
The Government embarked on a programme of privatising the housing association sector. I have given that phrase some thought; I have not simply thrown it out. If we consider the development of Government policy towards the housing associations over the past two or three years, effectively, as the present Minister for the Environment and Countryside used to say frequently at the Dispatch Box, they are pushing what was a voluntary sector into the private sector. They are doing that through financial means.
The Government were in favour of expanding the private rented sector. Secondly, they were in favour of deregulating housing associations. Thirdly, they created a series of devices under part IV of the Act to bring about the breaking up of local authority housing. They made no bones about that—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a lot of rope; I do not want him to hang himself. If he came back to the housing revenue accounts, I should be much obliged.

7 pm

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not dream of straying from the subject.
The Government's general attitude towards housing is summed up in the proposals on ring fencing as they apply to all these matters.
In the 1988 Act the Government set out, through the use of housing action trusts and the pick-a-landlord—strictly speaking, the pick-a-nant—schemes, to give people the opportunity to opt out of local authority housing—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going very wide. I have asked him once to return to the point.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
These provisions have universally failed—no one has opted out. I have described the carrot, which was the offer of somewhere else to go, but the stick is contained in this Bill. It is to be seen in the Government's treatment of council house rents and housing revenue accounts. Having failed with the carrot, they now introduce the stick. As in the early 1980s and subsequently, new arrangements for rents and for the way in which council house finance is treated are being introduced to make it increasingly attractive to tenants to opt out of a local authority.
The Government hope that tenants will opt either into the newly deregulated housing association sector or into some other form of housing. The Minister is nodding as I point out last year's carrot and this year's stick.
Instead of taking a sensible view of housing policy and of choice, the Government have chosen to victimise council tenants, because of their own ideological predictions, so that they can force them into a financial position in which they have no choice but to follow the Government line. If the Government were so worried


about the situation, why did they not look into some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned? Why did they not recognise that billions of pounds are needed to put all the housing stock of all the various types of tenure in good order? Why did they not devise a new system to do that effectively? They did not even attempt to think about it. Despite their protestations, why did not the Government consider doing something through local authorities—they are responsible for homelessness—to try to resolve the problem of homelessness?
One of our amendments deals with homelessness. It is no accident, given that the Government have removed 1·2 million properties from all types of rented accommodation, that somewhere along the line something has to give. What gave is visible on the streets of London and across the country. It is not a problem that affects only London; 43 per cent. of all the people who registered as homeless last year were outside London—in towns, rural areas and other cities. These people have nowhere to go. Even when there is surplus local authority accommodation that can be brought on to the market, the Government will so arrange the housing revenue account and other factors that affect local authorities that these people will probably not receive the right combination of benefits to support their efforts to rent a council house or flat.
The Government can pump a few million pounds here and a few million there into new schemes and claim to be a caring Government who are doing something about homelessness, but they know that the problem will get worse until more houses are built. Since 1979, 19,000 fewer council houses a year have been built and there have been 9,000 fewer housing association completions every year. Clearly no effort has been made to deal with the problems of homelessness.
The Government talk about subsidies. I served on the Standing Committee of this Bill, and it was absolutely clear to us that the way in which the rate fund contributions and housing benefit will work is that the poor will be bound to subsidise the even poorer, perhaps to the advantage of the taxpayer but definitely to the disadvantage of those who are trapped in the system.
It is worth discussing who gets what out of the housing system. Housing benefit, whether we like it or not, is the subsidy that applies to those in greatest need. Over the past two or three years the Government have been intent on reducing it. They have not had the guts or the foresight to look at mortgage income tax relief, which is the comparable system—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman himself said that he was a member of the Standing Committee. As such he is familiar with this clause and with the amendments, and I must refer him to them.

Mr. Howarth: This is a wide group of amendments. I am not sure how I can talk about the subsidy system that applies to local authority tenants without comparing it with housing subsidies for others in the community. I suggest that mortgage income tax relief is directly comparable—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in the Bill, and it is way outside our debate this evening.

Mr. Howarth: It was worth a try.
As my hon. Friends have said, council tenants will not benefit from all this. Those in other sorts of tenure will continue to receive other sorts of benefits.
The tragedy of this Bill is that the Government had an opportunity to examine all the problems that contribute to the housing crisis, but they have refused, or were too stubborn or too stupid, to deal with the problems. Instead they have carried on with a Bill that does nothing to resolve this country's housing problems. Our amendments would go some way to alleviating the problems that the Bill will cause, and I strongly commend them to the House. Some time in the next two or three years, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith will be at the Dispatch Box with Labour's housing Bill, and only then will we start to deal with the problems of housing.

Mr. Battle: I shall speak to Lords amendment No. 117 and amendments (a) to (f) in the name of my hon. Friends. I shall also refer to amendment No. 121 on homelessness and to the amendments dealing with capitalised repairs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) was right to deliver a wide-ranging speech because the Bill is becoming increasingly threadbare. The Government are in increasing difficulty in finding someone who is prepared to defend it. For weeks we have not been clear about who is the Minister for Housing. I gather that it is traditional for the Government to send a Minister to see the housing associations. However, they could not find one to send this year and a civil servant was sent. Obviously he cannot answer about policy.
No one on the Government Front Bench has seen the Bill through every stage of its consideration in the House and in Committee. That means that for the benefit of the Ministers who are now with us we have to go over old ground again because Ministers now give us answers that are completely different from the answers that we received from former Ministers. I shall give one practical example. In this debate the Minister decried capitalisation of repairs. I remind him that his predecessor, who is now the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, said that he felt that capitalisation was entirely legitimate. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he agrees with his colleague or whether there has been a policy change.
At least the policy of the former Minister was consistent with that of the present Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who went round the country 18 months ago encouraging local authorities to use all their capital receipts for repairs. What is that if it is not legitimate capitalisation? Perhaps the Minister will explain whether policy changes with the Minister or whether it remains according to the content of the Bill as it is discussed in the House, in Committee and in the other place.

Mr. Chope: There is a great danger that I will be traduced as a result of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I spoke earlier.

Mr. Battle: I was.

Mr. Chope: If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman should recall that I specifically differentiated between true capital and capitalised repairs and captitalised repairs that are not for true capital purposes but for the purpose of, for


example, carrying out routine decoration works which most people would regard as not an appropriate use of capital resources.

Mr. Battle: I know that the Minister has not been in post for long. He should refer to Hansardand the debate in Committee on the Bill and on the 1988 Act which was on this precise topic. I am happy to assure him that former Ministers took a different view from the subtle distinction that the Minister is now trying to draw.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. Can he give us chapter and verse of any occasion when any former junior Minister or Housing Minister told the Standing Committee or the House that small matters such as outside painting should be part of the capital programme? I do not remember that, and I do not believe that it happened.

Mr. Battle: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman intervened. I seem to remember that he was on the Committee that examined the 1988 Bill. Perhaps he was writing Christmas cards and not paying attention. If he reads the Committee report, he will see that it contains a thorough discussion on the difference between capitalised repairs and the need to use capital receipts to carry out those repairs.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Where is it?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should go to the Vote Office and ask for the Standing Committee documents. If he spends the next two hours going through them instead of having his meal, he may find the information there.
There is a key issue in the housing revenue account that will affect tenants. The Minister may not recall it, but I am sure that other hon. Members who took part in the debate and those who attended and listened will remember that we had a thorough discussion about the balancing of the housing revenue account. I remember pressing the Minister hard on the issue. One side of the housing revenue equation consists of income in the form of rents. The expenditure column contains the management and maintenance costs, the repair costs and the housing benefit costs. I am sure that from the briefings that he has been given the Minister will recall that at one stage the ring fencing of that account included the housing benefit to be paid to private sector tenants. That obviously caused a great loophole, because if landlords hyped up their rents the local authority would have had to use its housing revenue account to subsidise the high rents of the private landlord. That was ludicrous and was not then included in the Bill.
At one point the Minister suggested that there had been no changes in the rebate structure, but I suggest that there have been because clause 78(1) of the Bill quite categorically states:
In subsection (2) of section 30 of the Social Security Act 1986 (housing benefit finance), for the words 'total housing benefit' there shall be substituted the words 'relevant benefit' and there shall be added at the end the words 'and in this subsection "relevant benefit" means total housing benefit excluding, in the case of a local authority in England and Wales, any Housing Revenue Account rebates granted by them'.

That illustrates the difficulty that we encountered right in the middle of the Committee. When we were in Committee discussing this Bill, another Committee on which I also had the privilege to serve was discussing the Social Security Bill. The Government had not got their act together and had not connected the proposals in the Social Security Bill to the Housing Act 1988. The reason for that is apparent because many council tenants are on housing benefit. If, as the Minister proposes, all housing rents go up in line with capital values, then the bill for social security and in particular housing benefit will increase incredibly as well. Therefore, a cut-off clause was introduced.
The Minister needs to study the interaction between the Social Security Act 1988 and the Bill. If he does that, he will find that if rents rise for council tenants they will get their personal rebate but the local authority will not get its money back from the Department of Social Security. That shortfall in the accounts will have to be met from increases in the rents of tenants who are not on social security. There is no other way. That means that the poor or people on modest incomes will have their rents increased in order to pay the deficit in the housing benefit of those who are unemployed or have low incomes. Before the Minister and Conservative Members leap up and say that this will not affect people on benefits, they should look carefully at the detail of the Bill.
There is a parallel to which I shall briefly refer. Many Conservative Members say that the poor will have the poll tax paid for them, but we all know that there is also a cut-off clause. The suggestion is that everybody will pay 20 per cent., and that means that the maximum rebate is only 80 per cent. The notion that the Government are protecting the poor from increases is false. It is quite wrong to use the Bill and housing policy as a means of sorting out income maintenance. That should be done through the social security system and not by insisting on cuts in the repair programmes of local authorities by putting pressure on the housing revenue account.
I hope that the Minister will take that on board and will withdraw the proposals in the Bill before local authority rents go up and the social security offices refuse to reimburse local authorities for the housing benefit costs. As a result, local authorities will be penalised on the repair and maintenance work that they could provide for their tenants. It will mean that local authorities will put in the rebates and that the income maintenance which should come from the tax system through the social security system at the centre will be pushed back to local level. Perhaps in line with the Government's approach to poverty we will be pushed back again in the direction of a kind of retrograde parish relief system at local level.
I asked the new Minister a question earlier today. It is relevant to amendment No. 112, as it deals with the homeless. I asked him:
what is the Government's estimate of the number of homeless people under the age of 18 years.
The reply was:
The numbers of people under the age of 18 years among the households accepted as homeless are not reported by local authorities and my Department has no estimates.
Given the new scientific age of computer calculation, and the emphasis that the Government put on collecting accurate information and statistics, I find an amazing complacency in that reply, not least because it is well known that in my city of Leeds every month 300 young


people present themselves as being homeless or threatened with homelessness, and that at least a third of them are aged under 18. I hope that the Minister is not suggesting that he will shuffle off responsibility for the homeless by saying that, as the Department cannot keep figures of those who are under 18, they are not a problem.
The Minister should say that there will be a change of policy. The Bill, with its proposals to ring-fence the housing revenue account, will simply add to the ideological almost-addiction of the previous Secretary of State, who was hooked on the free market. He believed that the price was all—push rents up and the housing problems will be resolved. Already one of the Minister's colleagues has said that the Government will introduce no more legislation on housing, because they have "done housing".
I take the view which I am sure many others take, that the Government's housing policies have resulted in a housing disaster in terms of improvement of stock and a housing tragedy in terms of human lives for those who are homeless. I hope that this rag-bag of amendments, whose acceptance would make the Bill even more shoddy, will mean that increasingly Ministers are unprepared to defend it, with the result that, even at this late stage, they will be prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I did not have the pleasure, if I may call it that, of serving on the Standing Committee on this, or any other, housing Bill. Therefore, like the Minister, I am new to the job. When I looked at the amendments and the Bill, this amendment dealing with ring fencing was the one that stood out. It seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to raise rents and work towards the elimination of all council housing. This may be the Government's aim.
There is no doubt that there is a terrific housing shortage. I used to think that I came from a rather affluent society in my home town of Southport, which is in Sefton. However, when Sefton was created in 1974, we gathered Bootle, Crosby, Formby, Southport and many other little parishes. Within that group, I realised that there was a big and growing housing shortage. In my own home town of Southport, 3,000 families are waiting for housing. I cannot see that the Bill will improve that by one iota.
The housing shortage is not contained merely within my Merseyside area. It stretches throughout the country, and since I live part of the time in London, I have been able to see the many homeless young people in the capital city. They are now moving out of the cardboard cities and into the concrete jungle because winter is coming. On many nights I have spoken to the police and to the homeless and they tell me that the problem continues to grow, not only in London but in other major cities, and now the towns. I cannot think that the Bill will help those homeless people.
The deterioration in property will get worse. Some authorities have not been good at looking after their housing stock, and many have come to the attention of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They are of many persuasions—all political parties have had that trouble. What the Minister is proposing will not help in any way to improve the housing stock, much of which now needs a great deal of money spent on it. The housing subsidy account and the housing revenue account have been able to cope with many of the repairs that need to be done to council housing, but from here on that will be much more difficult.
It has been said that the Minister claimed that rents would not rise. He did not say that—he was misquoted. He said that rents will not be out of the reach of ordinary people. I should like to know what the term "ordinary people" means.

Mr. Battle: Those on average wages.

Mr. Fern: I do not know. I hope that the Minister will explain what he means, because this is the yardstick on which the Government will work. I should find it difficult to spotlight the ordinary person by using that yardstick. Can he guarantee that when he comes to define ordinary people, rents will not be out of the reach of those people?
It is morally wrong that better-off council tenants should be paying, through their rents, for the welfare benefits given to other tenants. Private and housing association tenants will not be put in that position. It will place council tenants in the difficult position of having to pay a little extra. This is particularly bad as better-off council tenants are a long way from being well off. There is no such thing as a well-off council tenant. A well-off person is one who owns his own property with only a small mortgage and there are few like that these days. To say that we are subsidising council tenants is untrue. It has never been true and it will not be true. It is another case of the poor subsidising the poor.
We have here greater central Government control over local authorities' housing activities, thus once more stifling local initiative—something at which Whitehall has been very good, especially since 1979. I can see that the Bill will do nothing to alleviate the growing housing shortage. lf the Minister can explain one or two of those points, I for one shall have my eyes opened.

Mr. David Winnick: Rent levels are already far too high, and the Bill will continue the substantial increases in rents that have already taken place. Those increases in rents result from the elimination of housing subsidies and are not the fault of the local council, certainly not mine, which recognises that much of the rent increases has been unjustified, but has simply no alternative, like every other local authority. These substantial rent increases have been aggravated by the substantial reduction in housing benefit. The phasing out of transitional benefit—a benefit which came about only as a result of the outcry, particularly by Opposition Members—will mean that many of those who will be expected to pay full rents will not be in a position to do so.
I receive many complaints from constituents about rent levels. They come to see me at my surgeries and show me the amount of rent that they are paying out of a relatively small income. I can hardly believe that they can be paying so much in rent. As one would expect, I write to the housing department, but it is nearly all in order in most cases. Usually there has been no mistake and the responsibility falls on the Government who, since they came to office 10 years ago, have deliberately pursued the policy of making life more and more difficult for local authority tenants.
One of the reasons why rents have gone up, apart from the substantial reduction in housing subsidies, is the Government's wish for council tenants to buy. They are pressurised to buy. They are told, "Why remain a council tenant? It is easier to buy." In many cases they have no wish to buy the property in which they live. The ring fencing that is included in the Bill will ensure that tenants


who are certainly not well off, but who are somewhat better off than others, will subsidise poorer tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the poor will subsidise the very poor.
We have not heard much from the Minister about the private sector. He would be boasting if there were any justification for boasting. We know the junior Minister's record before he came to the House. He is a fanatic about the privately-rented sector. He and other Ministers told us that there would be a revival of that sector, that that would solve much of the homelessness and the difficulties experienced by so many people.
I wonder how many more rented accommodation has come about in the private sector since the new legislation was put on the statute book—not much. That demonstrates what we said at the time—that the revival would not come about for all the reasons that we gave at the time. We are confronted by an acute housing crisis, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said.
7.30 pm
I shall give an illustration. Some constituents of mine, who are not in the worst housing plight, came to see me last Saturday. They are a young couple who have been married for two or three years and have one child. They live with the wife's mother. The situation in the household is tense. They are high on the waiting list, but every time they go to the local neighbourhood office, they find that other people are higher. That is understandable because, presumably, other people are considered to be in greater housing need.
The couple have been married for nearly three years and they have never had any accommodation of their own. They told me that, about 18 months ago, they considered buying a place but it was not possible then, let alone now. Theirs is not the worst case—far from it—but it illustrates some of the problems of people who are being punished and penalised, day in and day out, by the Government because they cannot afford a mortgage. What can they do? They can wait for years to be rehoused by the local authority. I am not exaggerating. Housing associations cannot help them, and it is a joke to mention the private rented sector to the people who come to my surgeries and who write to me about their housing problems.
Why should our fellow citizens be penalised because they do not have the income to buy? I accept that they are a minority, but they are a sizeable minority. If we leave the main building here and turn right, we will find that a vigil is taking place opposite Downing street. It is a vigil for the homeless and I understand that it has been organised by Shelter. This Christmas, there will be more homeless people than in any year since the end of the war. That is certain. There will be more families in bed-and-breakfast hostels this Christmas than ever before. Imagine what it must be like to stay in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the Christmas holiday and not to know when one will be rehoused.
The Prime Minister likes photo-opportunities and she likes to be photographed in favourable circumstances. Will she visit a bed-and-breakfast hostel on Christmas day? Will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State go to a hostel and see their fellow citizens living in squalid conditions because of the Government's policies? Nowadays one cannot go to a main line railway or

Underground station in central London without seeing young people with boards saying, "I am homeless". They are begging. They do not appear to me to be social victims in the sense of being drunkards. In the main they are young people who are encouraged to come to London by the Government. Once they are here, even if they find a job, they have no means of finding accommodation. That is the crisis that we have to deal with and to which the amendments refer.
Many accusations can be made against the Government. One of the worst is that they have shown a callous disregard for people who are not able to solve their housing problems by buying. They have shown a callous disregard for people who desperately require rented accommodation. Had I been told before 1979 that there would be a substantial reduction in the rented sector, I would have found it almost unbelievable. I shall not go into the argument about whether it is right for local authorities to sell houses, as it is not a part of this debate, but it is only right and proper that when accommodation is sold it should be replaced. Yesterday, in a parliamentary answer, I was told that the number of local authority starts last year was approximately 13,000 and that it is likely to be even less this year. That is disgraceful and scandalous.
I do not apologise for the fact that I have raised these issues in the House before and I shall continue to do so because the Chamber of the House of Commons is the right place to raise them. There is not much concern on the Conservative Benches. Ministers are well off. None of them has ever suffered the indignity of being without accommodation. None of them understands what it means not to be able to resolve housing difficulties. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) may mutter as much as he likes—Ministers do not understand the problems that I am trying to explain to the House.
I say again that it is scandalous that our fellow citizens should have to spend Christmas or any other time in the conditions that I have described. That is why we are right to object to the Bill. It is the duty and responsibility of Labour Members to explain what is happening at every opportunity, in the House and outside, and to point out the indifference that the Government show to the homeless and near-homeless in Britain.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: What will be the effect on the housing revenue account of the Rent Officers (Additional Functions) Order 1989—a statutory instrument which was shoved through the House in the early hours of the morning without any publicity? I honestly believe that it is the most nasty, vindictive piece of legislation that I have seen go through in all the time that I have been in the House.
The statutory instrument will affect the housing revenue account. It means that the rent rebate system for poor people will not be based on the rent of their dwelling, but will be calculated by a rent officer. He will decide how much of that dwelling can be taken into consideration for rent rebate. There is a formula. For example, if Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs, a married couple, are living together, it will be one room plus a little bit. Aged couples will wonder what will happen when one of them unfortunately passes away. How much increase in rent will the survivor have to face because of the reduction in rent rebates?
I concede that Ministers have not understood the implications for housing revenue accounts if some local authorities meet the cost of such a shabby statutory


instrument. The House may recall that what were National Coal Board houses were sold off to Mickey Mouse landlords, or racketeers. The houses are in the private sector now, and they will be caught by the statutory instrument. Again, there will be implications for HRAs. High rents are being charged on some of the estates of ex-NCB houses, and when tenants are entitled to a rent rebate, someone has to find the cost of the rebate. Under the old system, the Government met the cost. Under the new system, the burden is borne by local authorities' HRAs.
Some of the ex-NCB houses were defective and came within the terms of the Housing Defects Act 1984. In accordance with that legislation, local authorities had a duty to repurchase. Some houses are now owned by local authorities and will not be subject to the statutory instrument, but others are in the private sector. Any responsible local authority would not take the decision lightly that for some dwellings on privately owned estates it should have to find the difference between the provisions of the rent rebate system and the system that applies under the statutory instrument. The local authority can use the HRA, or rent rebate can be reduced to the extent that the rent officer becomes involved. In any event, money will have to be found from capital accounts.
Have Ministers ever considered tenants on private estates of the sort to which I am referring? It seems that they have not. There will be chaos on some estates. One local authority may take a sympathetic view and use its HRA, while the adjoining authority will not. That cannot be just. It cannot be fair.
Many tenants have been thrown to the wolves by the policy of the Government and British Coal. Many tenants do not know who their landlords are. These people will not have the protection that is enjoyed by local authority tenants. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he has any plans to alleviate the problems of former British Coal estates.

Mr. John Fraser: The Government's proposal that there should be a ring fence around the income and expenditure of local authorities' housing revenue accounts has been discussed for about a year. I do not have any great objection in principle to having a ring fence around an HRA providing four conditions are met. First, as a result of ring fencing, the rents that will be paid by tenants must be reasonable, and by "reasonable" I mean affordable by the sort of people for whom the accommodation is designed, the sort of people who will occupy the accommodation that is provided by the local authority. Secondly, the system which is devised must be fair and reasonable.
Thirdly, the system must not inhibit good management and repair policies. It must not stand in the way of a local authority ensuring that its estates are well managed, and in inner city areas good management is not an easy task. Repairs must be of a high standard and performed quickly, to the satisfaction of tenants. Fourthly, the deficit which results from the first three objectives—there will inevitably be a deficit in places such as Lambeth and Southwark—must be met by the taxpayer instead of the ratepayer. That would be welcome in the borough within

my constituency, where the burden that is placed upon ratepayers generally to subsidise the HRA is a pretty heavy one.
My fourth condition is not an unreasonable one, because it would not cost the Government very much money. It would not cost them more than a few hundred million pounds to make up the deficit, and that is a fleabite compared with the £4,000 million or £5,000 million that is paid out each year by taxpayers generally to support the cost of the mortgage interest relief scheme.
Does the system that is being introduced meet the criteria that I have outlined? In my view, it does not. My first criterion is that rents should be reasonable for those who are likely to occupy the accommodation that is provided. We know from an amendment that the Government introduced on Report that the level of rents which they propose for local authority dwellings should be related between authorities to the prices that are obtained when houses are sold under the right-to-buy scheme.
It is comparatively easy to predict the relativities of rents between one part of the country and another. There is not much variation between the comparative prices of houses being sold under the right-to-buy scheme between one area and another and house prices generally. For example, we know that in Rossendale the cost of a house for a working-class family will be about £15,000 to £20,000. There are some who will be able to buy a terraced house for rather less than that. In Lambeth, which is within my constituency, or Wandsworth, which is the borough that the Minister used to represent when he was a councillor, the capital cost of housing is about three or four times higher than in somewhere such as Rossendale, Burnley or Bury.
We can deduce from those relativities that, if £20 or £15 a week is the right sort of rent in Burnley or Rossendale, the comparative rent based on right-to-buy figures within Lambeth, Wandsworth or Southwark will be £60 or £80 a week. That, however, is not the market rent. If market rents are to be charged for local authority accommodation, which may be the long-term effect of housing action trusts, in my part of London, rents would be between £100 and £200 a week. That can be checked easily by looking through the local paper, the Evening Standard or Loot. They are not exaggerated market rents. Those two sets of figures illustrate the comparison between one part of the country and another. Ring fencing and the Government's formula for gradually increasing local authority rents will lead to rents in a borough like mine being pushed beyond the means of the people for whom the housing was designed.
Secondly, is the proposed system fair? As other hon. Members have said, because of changes in the housing benefit system, ring fencing will mean that some council tenants will pay more rent to subsidise their poorer neighbours—the reverse of the previous system. Poorer tenants will subsidise the poorest in the housing revenue account. That is a strange system.
In Belgravia, people pay more rent because they live next door to rich people. In Hampstead, people pay more for their houses for the same reason. In Pimlico, Chelsea and other areas, the values of property and the rents that people are prepared to pay are often greater because of the affluence in which they live. In an odd reversal of that position, in poorer parts of the metropolis, on the other side of London, poorer tenants will pay more because they live next door to the poorest tenants. They will pay


towards the cost of their neighbours' housing benefit because of changes in the social security arrangements and the new system of ring fencing.
Thirdly, will the new system satisfy the test of more adequate provision for repairs and management? I have a quarrel with many local authorities. Often—I have to say that to protect myself against anyone who says that this is not true of their local authority—rents are low, but the quality of housing management and repair is also low. If I had to make a choice between a slightly higher rent with better management and repairs and lower rents with poorer management and repairs, I know what I would choose. I should prefer to pay a little more rent to have a little more quality.
In some housing authorities people tell me that the rents are very high. When I ask about the rents for housing association property in the same area, they tell me that they are much higher. One deduces that a huge crush of people must want to move from housing association properties into local authority properties. However, when the transfer applications are examined, it is often found that that is not the case. People do not mind paying more in return for higher quality.
The problem is political as well as financial. Often it is politically difficult to defend the case for putting up rents. Sadly, there is often resistance to increasing rents a little to spend more on repairs. Nothing in the Bill will make it easier to do so. Ring fencing will drive up rents to pay for the reduced subsidy. If local authorities want to follow my suggestion to increase rents, with tenants' consent to raise money for better repairs, they will find that they have been pre-empted.
If rents in Lambeth have risen from £20 to £60 a week to pay both for eliminating the subsidy to poorer tenants who will lose benefits and for the costs of administering housing benefit, there will be no margin to allow an extra pound or two on the rent to pay for good management. Indeed, the converse will happen. Councils will be under pressure to reduce spending on repairs and management because tenants have already swallowed enough rent increases. That is why the amendments are important. In setting notional rents, the Government need to take account of the effect of their proposals on management and repairs.
About two thirds of the cases raised with me in my constituency relate to housing problems. I do not have a monopoly on that. At the end of my Friday night advice sessions, I despair about what I can do to help my constituents. The same kind of cases come up time and time again. Sometimes a husband and wife or partners may live with their two children in a bed-sit. What kind of privacy or life can they have in such accommodation? Such cases are not isolated. Many such families come to me within the same evening and ask, "What are the Government doing about it?"
There was a time when Ministers genuinely cared about housing problems. They thought that we in the Labour party had got it wrong and that their new formulae would get it right. There was a honeymoon period when we gave them credit for their intentions, if not for their achievements. Because of the direction of housing policy and the removal of subsidy from local authority housing, when people ask whether the Government care, I have to

reply, "They don't care if you die of despair. They don't care if they are driving you into inner-city concentration camps without any hope or prospect of bringing up a family in dignity." Many poorer people in the community, who rely on their local authority for housing, cannot avoid reaching the conclusion that that is the Government's attitude.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. Like him, I see many people at my surgery who are in a desperate housing plight. As a result of the Government's policies, there is virtually nothing that I can do for them. I also agree with him about ministerial attitudes.
The amendments are about housing revenue accounts and rents. I wish to deal with the serious implications for Waltham Forest. I know that there are similar problems in other hon. Members' areas but I have the provisional figures for my area which I want to share with the House and the Minister. I am not sure that he is aware of the serious implications in my area for rents, capital investment, repairs and the local authority's ability to tackle homelessness, which is an immense problem. All the available accommodation in my area is taken up by the homeless, so that there is little movement of other people on the waiting list, even if they are in dire need.
Withdrawal of housing subsidy according to the Government's guidelines will mean a loss of about £4·7 million to Waltham Forest. That will mean a rent increase of 21 per cent. with effect from 1 April next year. To that will have to be added the cost of unsubsidised management, and maintenance costs, inflation, charges from the current year and provision for bad debts, which the Government have not taken into account in their notional figures. The actual figures will be greater than the notional figures set by the Department of the Environment. That is another £3·75 million, which pushes up the rent rise to 38 per cent. In addition, there is a shortfall on the capital account, which again arises out of the Bill and which must be met by the housing revenue account so that the capital books can be balanced. It is another £7 million in Waltham Forest, which pushes the rent rise up to 70 per cent. Why must there be such a rise in rents under the Bill? Even if it were 20 per cent.—although 70 per cent. is more likely—it would not be in line with inflation, which is much lower. It is between three and 10 times the rate of inflation. What is the justification for that ?
8 pm
The Government proclaim that fighting inflation is their top priority. If so, why are they pushing through a measure that will have such an impact on rents? Does the Minister really understand the implications of the Bill, especially as they affect tenants? If not, the Government should urgently review the Bill. If they do, they are effectively saying they do not care a fig about the problems that the Bill will create.
The figures that I have for the capital account for 1990–91 show an HIP allocation for the borough of £10 million, and that is being optimistic. If we add to that capital receipts of £6 million, the total resources amount to £16 million. That is only half the 1989–90 resources. The Bill provides three main reasons for that. First, councils cannot use the previous year's capital receipts. Secondly, they cannot use their prescribed receipts—that is, the


right-to-buy money—for repairs as opposed to major investment. Thirdly, 75 per cent. of the right-to-buy money cannot be used for investment; it must be used to repay past debts.
The capital programme was set about a year ago, so it cannot simply be cut. It includes mandatory grants in excess of £ 1 million and contractually committed schemes, which are unavoidable without penalty, of £15 million. In other words, that £16 million is already committed. There are urgent 1989–90 schemes that Waltham Forest must fulfil, and they amount to another £7 million. There are only a few of them—for example, Northwood tower where there is serious structural and fabric disrepair. There is Cogan avenue, which is needed because Whitebeam tower has similar disrepair problems and 100 families must be decanted to Cogan avenue.
Three housing association schemes are also included which are intended for people with mental and learning disabilities. Those crucial schemes must be fulfilled. That brings the capital programme to a total of £23 million, yet the resources available under the Bill will be only £16 million, a shortfall of £7 million.
Will the Minister guarantee that the new system under the Bill will allow the same current level of investment to continue? The figures show that that will not be the case, but there will be cuts in capital investment of 50 per cent. or even more. The only way that that could be avoided is for the additional burden to fall on the rents, as I have already explained. What is the Government's intention? Do they really understand the impact on local authorities such as Waltham Forest? If they do not, they should review the Bill. If they do, they are cynically uncaring.
The Bill has implications for the fight against homelessness. One method to deal with homelessness is leasing, and Waltham Forest has a programme to secure about 500 leases in three years. It is a central part of its strategy of avoiding the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, although other boroughs are forced to use that option. Waltham Forest should be congratulated on not putting people into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and the leasing scheme plays a great part in that success. The Bill includes regulations that will penalise councils that swap short-term leases. If a council takes out a lease for more than three years, the total capital value of the lease is assessed and the amount that the local authority can then borrow is reduced by that amount. That is iniquitous.
If a local authority leases a property for three years and then releases it, and then my authority, Waltham Forest, takes up that lease, the first authority's holding of the lease counts against the credit limit of Waltham Forest. Councils such as Conservative-controlled Westminster and Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets have already taken up at least 300 properties in Waltham Forest. That will restrict Waltham Forest's right to lease homes in its own area.
That is wrong. A local authority should be able to take out a lease for longer than three years. The homelessness problem will not be solved in anything like three years; it will take much longer to tackle it. Therefore, Waltham Forest is effectively being penalised for trying to sort out its homelessness without having to resort to bed and breakfast. Is the Minister really suggesting that Waltham Forest should use bed-and-breakfast accommodation? That would be the effect of the regulations.
I ask the Minister to review the position. The Government are doing precious little to tackle the problem of rising homelessness. At the very least, they should riot be imposing restrictions that will hamper the legitimate attempts of a local authority to tackle the problem. I ask the Minister seriously to consider those points.

Mr. Redmond: I had not intended to make a speech but having listened to the Minister I felt that I must make a few comments. I am concerned that this Minister is no different from those who went before him in his attitude towards housing. The Government's hatred for the council house tenant is crystal clear, and it appears to increase each year. I used to think that the Government hated the miners more than anything else, but it now appears that they have turned their hatred towards the council tenant. Their policies are detrimental to a section in our society that requres cheap accommodation because they cannot afford to purchase in the private sector. I am a little worried that that hatred is blinding the common sense that should prevail in order to meet the needs of that section of our society.
Since 1979 there has been no long-term planning for local authorities, never mind housing. For a housing authority to function properly it needs a long-term strategy. However, when the Government interfere with the money available to an authority, the needs of council tenants cannot be met successfully.
The Minister talked about the fairness of the legislation and, in particular, of the group of amendments. I listened to him carefully, but I cannot see any fairness within the system. One thing is sure: when the Bill is enacted the council tenant will be a damn sight worse off than he or she is now. Compassion for and understanding of the needs of the council house tenant are in short supply.
The Minister talked about the Government meeting a housing authority's needs, coming along with a pocketful of money and doling it out if the council proved that a need existed and that it had acted within the guidelines laid down by the Government. He cannot live in the same world that I live in. When Doncaster, like I am sure every other local authority, submits its housing investment programme, it usually finishes up with 50 per cent. of what it requires to meet its needs in the forthcoming year. However, the Government have seen fit to cut that allocation, which has a knock-on effect.
The money from the sale of council houses is the tenants' money which should be invested in a local authority's housing stock. However, the Government appear to say one thing and do another. They have allowed housing authorities to spend only a percentage of capital receipts when all of it could have been spent to improve conditions for tenants.
The Minister appeared unable to say what he thought a fair rent was. I do not know how long a piece of string is, but the Minister appeared unable to say any more than that rent increases would depend on this, that or the other. However, I have no doubt that rents will continue to escalate. It is no good the Minister saying that they will go no higher than inflation, or whatever. Experience shows that not to be true and that is a great pity.
The Minister talked about fabrication versus repairs. He appeared to accept that the cost of installation of new window frames would form part of the HIP allocation but said that the cost of painting window frames would not, and that is a tragedy. Local authorities struggle like hell to


try to maintain their properties in a reasonable state of repair, but older properties require more money spending on them to ensure that they are maintained to a reasonable standard. Unfortunately, the money is not there to maintain them, so a gradual deterioration is taking place. It is a great pity that the Government will not provide money to invest in fabrication while authorities continue with their repair programme. Fabrication reduces the need for repairs. One-off repairs are a damn sight more costly than a fabrication programme, which can lead to savings in the long term. It is a tragedy that the Government are not interested in long-term solutions to housing problems.
8.15 pm
Between 1975 and 1979, when there was a change of Government, Doncaster council had 1,500 new starts a year. That figure dropped in 1979. Those new starts were made possible as a result of Government money and the Government's permission to borrow money to meet a need within the community where housing waiting lists were growing. Those 1,500 new starts comprised houses to meet the needs of large and small families and decent bungalows to meet the needs of our senior citizens. However, the ring fencing that the Minister talked about will stop investment in such bungalows, for which the need is escalating. As people in our community become older, they become more infirm and need suitable accommodation. I regret that the Government are treating the elderly with contempt.
Doncaster, like many other authorities, provides accommodation for senior citizens from all sections of the community—private and public. Unfortunately, ring fencing means that the council house tenant is being asked to pay an increased rent to provide accommodation for the private sector, and that is wrong. Money should come not only from the Government but from the rates to provide accommodation to meet the needs of the elderly in our society. There is a complete lack of understanding about what will be needed in the future. It will be a great pity if the Government do not stop to reflect and then come back to the House with a sensible policy for that section of the community which they can view with pride.
Yet again, the Government are trying to kid the public that they are providing something when they are not. When the public come to taste the fruits of that policy they will find that they are bitter fruits indeed. At the next election many Conservative Members will have cause to condemn their Ministers for not providing suitable and sensible policies which meet the needs of the community.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Bill and the Government's attitude towards the Lords amendments suggest that they have launched a continuing attack on local government and all that it stands for. It would have been far better for the Government to be honest and to say at the outset that the Bill represented a continuation of their policy of moving all local authority housing into the private sector, with the possible exception of free sheltered accommodation.
I should like a categorical statement from the Minister about what is meant by the proposals in the amendments concerning the housing revenue account, rents and rent rebates. I expect rents in my area to be forced up to £50, £55 or £60. The Government say that that is fine, because there is a system of rebates—which, over the years, has

caused problems that we are now gradually surmounting. According to the Government, a group of people who do not receive the rebates will bear the brunt of the attack.
I cannot help but think that the Government's policy is to try to force that group out of their chosen status as council tenants, leaving them no alternative but to buy their houses. If the Government had made that clear, fair enough, but they have tried to cover it up.
The reason for my continued opposition to the Government's ring-fencing policy is the fact that my authority ring fenced years ago, long before the Government ever thought of doing so. For years we have taken nothing from the rates to help with housing. Some of my colleagues in other authorities have said that we are wrong. Fair enough: they have their views, and we have ours.
In my area council housing, by and large, has financed itself, but we always had a plan for housing development that was 10, 12 or 14 years in advance. We increased the rents of existing council houses to pay for the void during which no rents would be received for houses that were being built, and did not take the money from the rates.
Under our system, elderly people could be moved out of three-bedroomed houses into bungalows, leaving the houses free for families. Under the Bill and the Lords amendments, housing benefit will be cut if the Government consider that the recipients are living in houses too large for them. If that happens, those people will of course turn to the local authority, hoping to be rehoused; but many houses have been sold. The Minister shakes his head, but what I have said is true, and we can prove it.
Will ring fencing force tenants to pay for the rebates of other tenants? That is what was intimated by the previous Secretary of State. Will tenants have to pay for the rent arrears of others? That seems likely to me. If the Minister can refute what I have said, let him tell us from the Dispatch Box that every treasurer of every local authority who submits an account of rent rebates and arrears will continue to receive money under the present system.
The Minister has talked of targeting subsidies, and has said that the Bill will make things simple. When a Minister in the present Government talks about making things simple, I immediately assume that he has found a way of saving money, for they never make anything simple unless there is something to be gained. Everything that the Government have said suggests that they intend to load council house tenants with the debts of others: the poor will pay for those who are poorer still, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has pointed out.
All that we want is for the Government to be honest about what they are doing and what it will mean. Will rents be raised by as much as I have suggested? Why should a housing account not pay for itself? When we accused the Government of centralising the rent scheme, they denied that they were doing so. The Minister, however, mentioned a minimum of 95p for each council house, which must mean that rents are to be controlled centrally. What is to stop a Minister—whatever his party—from increasing rents time and again without the local authority's permission? Will the 95p minimum and the £4·50 maximum be based in such a way that the authority will be left free to decide how to spend the money?
If an authority is paying its way in council housing, as mine is, why should it have to put 95p on the rent if it does


not need that money? What authority has central Government to impose such a requirement on a council that has achieved what local government has wanted to achieve for years, and has managed to make council housing responsible for itself?
Moreover, it is the houses that have paid for themselves—the houses whose rent has contributed to the "global" sum of the housing revenue account—that have been sold, although they are the seedcorn of the council housing system. Far from helping local authorities and their tenants, the Government are destroying a housing system that has lasted for years, for the sake of a purely ideological concept of house ownership.
As the Minister knows, I agree wholeheartedly with home ownership. My local authority bought land and put in sewers and roads at the ratepayers' expense to ensure that those who wished to build could do so more cheaply than many others elsewhere. Houses were purpose built for sale. Much of what the Government have done, however, has ruined such policies, in my area and others, and I find that very sad.
It is even sadder to know that some tenants will be paying through the nose—unless the Minister can tell us that that will not happen. I wish that he would say that all housing rebates will be paid as they are now rather than being taken from other tenants, and that rent arrears will not be paid by tenants either. Council tenants in my area should be crying out. There may be six houses in a row, four of which may have been sold. The others will be occupied by council tenants. In their rents those council tenants are paying, for example, for the grass to be cut in the gardens of the other four houses.
If the Bill is passed, as I expect it will be, my local authority will have to look again at what belongs to housing and what belongs to rates. If the Minister honestly and truly looks at the position, I am sure that he will acknowledge that council house tenants are being imposed upon. He will then come to the Dispatch Box and say exactly what is to happen. Our council house tenants will have to pay for the rebates of others. They will also have to pay for the rents of other people. We should be given the answer to that question. Council house tenants ought to be able to decide what their future is to be.

Mr. Pike: I have waited for some time to take part in the debate. I did so quite deliberately because I had expected to hear contributions to the debate from a few Conservative Members. It is surprising that no Conservative Member has taken part in the debate on these important Lords amendments and the amendments that have been proposed to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke about housing subsidy for those in receipt of benefit. He also referred to ring fencing. I listened carefully to the Minister's interventions during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Whenever the Minister was pressed on those issues, he changed the question that my hon. Friend had asked and gave the answer that suited him. At no stage did he answer the questions that were put to him. Every time that the Minister rose to his feet, which he did several times, he deliberately changed the question because notes were being pushed at him. We want to be convinced that at no stage will the poorest tenants who are

able to pay their rents and other council house tenants be asked to meet part of the housing subsidy that is to be given to those who need it. Do the Government intend to meet the shortfall that arises from any additional burdens that local authorities have to bear as a result of the proposed changes?

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend knows that the Bill, as drafted, clearly states that the poor will have to subsidise the poorest through the housing benefit system. The Minister got himself into trouble when he said that any difference would be made up by the taxpayer. He had to retreat from that position during the series of interventions that my hon. Friend has rightly identified. We need to know whether the Government's intention is to make people pay for the housing benefit of others in the area, or whether the taxpayer will have to pick up that bill.

Mr. Pike: That is an important point. If the Bill becomes an Act, it is what the legislation says that will count, not what the Minister says. If the Minister meant what he said—that the taxpayer, not council tenants, will meet the bill—that must be spelt out clearly in the legislation. Even at this late stage an amendment ought to be tabled to make that clear.
The Bill has been altered at every stage. I was not a member of the Committee, but I know that the Bill was altered in Committee. It was considerably altered on Report and it was almost completely redrafted in the other place. If the Bill is still not right at this stage, the Government must get it right. We need to know whether the Minister's original statement was correct—that taxpayers will have to bear the cost, not council house tenants.
It is regrettable that local authorities have been made to bear the burden of administering housing benefit. They were never fully recompensed for their work. The burden was shifted from the Department of Social Security to the local authorities. They had to carry out the Government's dirty work.
The Government have deliberately discriminated against those who want to live in rented housing, particularly in council houses. They have encouraged people to buy their homes, a point that has been made on several occasions during the debate. In 1979 the Government's subsidy to the housing revenue account in Burnley was £1·6 million. That was rapidly eroded, over a period of two years, to zero, and it has been at zero ever since. Furthermore, housing factor E7 in the grant-related expenditure assessment is affected if councils do not increase rents in accordance with the Government's wishes. We want council tenants to be given a fair deal. If the Government are not prepared to do what we wish them to do, council tenants will, once again, be unfairly penalised.
A person who is buying his house gets tax relief, whatever his income. If he is paying tax at the higher rate, his tax relief will be at the higher rate, subject to the £25,000 limit. His position has to be compared with that of a council tenant. I hope that the Government are prepared to accept that they have made a mistake. They ought to make a concession to council tenants and treat them fairly and equitably. However, the Government do not believe in fairness and equity, so I shall not be surprised if they are not prepared to go down that road.
We deal with capital receipts in one of our amendments to the Lords amendment. It would enable councils, if they so wished, to use capital receipts for repairs. It is important that we should allow local authorities the right to do that. I have never agreed with the way in which the Government imposed restrictions on the use of capital receipts through the 20 per cent. factor and I certainly do not believe that they should now prevent them from being spent on repairs. If they do that, there will be an immediate shortfall on the housing revenue account. Local authorities either will have to put the rents up even more to ensure that important repairs are carried out, or, worse, the repairs will not be carried out and there will be a further deterioration in our housing stock.
The Government should be concerned that in the past 10 years there has been a deterioration in public and private sector housing. We do not have a housing crisis. We have a number of housing crises which have all been created by the Government.
When I was a local council member I did not agree that capital receipts should be used for repairs to council property. However, I strongly believe in local government and I believe that local government should have the ability to take such a decision. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. Although we might not always agree with what local authorities choose to do, we certainly believe that they have the right to choose. I believe that that money should not be used in that way, but I might be in a minority. Nevertheless, that is the view I took when I was on a local authority. However, I recognise that, due to further reductions in their HIP allocations, pressure to increase rents by other measures has forced local authorities to consider that option. They have no alternative. I do not blame local authorities, as I recognise why they have been forced into that position. I stopped being leader of Burnley council in 1983 and the situation has continued to worsen year by year. I appreciate why local authorities have had to do that.
I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of our amendment. If the Minister does not want to force up rents to totally unacceptable levels, if he does not want council houses to deteriorate and the housing stock to worsen, and if he is a reasonable man, he should agree with it. I wait to be surprised some day by a positive response from the Government. I hope that tonight the Minister will choose to surprise me.
The Government must recognise that the further turning of the screw on local authorities, and particularly on council tenants, is becoming increasingly unacceptable. If they believe that council tenants will support them in the next general election, they are sadly mistaken. The categories of people to whom they can appeal for support will dwindle as they increase the numbers of people that they attack.
I hope that the Minister has taken note of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends. We have had a constructive debate, although no Conservative Member has contributed to it. I assume that either Conservative Members are not interested in council tenants, particularly those on housing benefit, or that they accept our argument and hope that the Minister will respond favourably. Perhaps they will join us in the Lobby. I hope that the Minister responds positively and at least meets my two

specific points by ensuring that council tenants do not have to pick up the tab for any housing benefit payable to the poorest among them, as that would be wrong and unacceptable. I hope that he also recognises the importance of ensuring that capital receipts can be used to maintain and repair council housing stock.

Mr. Tony Banks: I hesitated before I stood up because I saw the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) poised in his seat and, in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said about the lack of speeches by Conservative Members, I thought that we would hear from the hon. Member for Harrow, West.
I have a programme from the Institute of Housing, Northern Counties. There is to be a conference called, "Housing—Moving into the Nineties". It is to be held on Wednesday 8 November. That is tomorrow. There will be an official opening of the conference and an opening address by a Mr. R. Hughes, MP, who, as we all know, is the hon. Member for Harrow, West. He is the parliamentary consultant to the Institute of Housing. I was hoping for a little taster of his opening address. Unfortunately, I cannot make the conference tomorrow, but I shall be speaking there on Thursday when I shall be talking about the Local Government and Housing Bill, so I shall have to rely on an accurate report of what the hon. Member for Harrow, West will have said about housing following the debate tonight and the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assist me; he is taking so long over the preamble to his speech. Is there any chance that I will be able to get away from the House after the votes to catch my plane at 8.30 am tomorrow?

Mr. Banks: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I will certainly urge my hon. Friends to make way as speedily as possible so that we can hear the learned words of the hon. Member for Harrow, West. I suspect that he will catch his plane quite comfortably and will be able to say what small contribution he made to the debate this evening. It is certainly far more substantial than that of any other Conservative Back Bencher so far, so perhaps that is to his credit.
The Opposition amendment (a) to the Lords amendment is designed to ensure that, before the Secretary of State makes a determination with regard to the amount of allowance he is to make in calculating housing revenue account subsidies for 1990–91, he has regard to the likely changes which will result from such a determination. We raised many of our arguments in Committee, but we have to return to them here, because, as we see it, the new financial system which will be introduced as a result of the Bill is designed to give the Secretary of State even greater power over the affairs of local authorities.
There seems to be no small part of local authority activity over which central Government do not wish to exercise some form of control. In many ways it is yet a further nail in the coffin of local democracy and accountability. I cannot understand why so many Conservative Members, including the Under-Secretary of State, who have a background in local government are prepared to connive at the unwinding of local democracy throughout the country. This is only one aspect of it—the further control over the housing revenue account, making


sure that there can be no discretionary payments from general rate income into the housing revenue account. We know what will happen. Either rents will go up alarmingly, or the standard of repairs and maintenance will fall from fairly lamentable levels, at least in London.
I cannot understand why Conservative Members with so much background in local government are prepared to go along with this. I understand that all things are now done in the name of the Prime Minister and that all decisions emanate downwards from No. 10 Downing street. She has no background, feeling or taste for local government. She seems to have a total abhorrence of it. However, I should have thought that one or two Conservative Members would be prepared to say to the Prime Minister, "This has gone too far. You are destroying the local democratic structures of the country and creating a social and economic crisis, particularly in the inner cities, that will be appalling for the country and even more disastrous for the fortunes of the Conservative party at the next election."

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is acting on an assumption that may be incorrect? Is it not possible that many of the hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend refers will have gone into local government not with a sense of enthusiasm for its place in the country but with a mission to minimise it or, in some cases, disrupt it? That may sound cynical, but in my experience it is possible.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has a good point. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have used local government as a jumping-off board for a career in Parliament. They are the careerists that we know are among us, and lamentably they are not wholly confined to the Conservative Benches.
When I was elected to the House in 1983, it did not even occur to me that I should stand down as a member of the Greater London council. I acknowledge the debt that I owe to the GLC for training and teaching me about local government and for being an example to the country of how an efficient local authority can be run. It brought a great deal of credit not only to the Labour party but to local government generally through the policies that it pursued. I acknowledge that debt and will continue to pay for it.
I am one of those who never forget an insult. Local government in this country has been insulted by Conservative Members and a council has been destroyed. If nothing else, that will keep me in politics because I want revenge. The old saying "Don't get angry, get even" runs through my political psyche and will continue to do so. I want to see Tory blood on the walls and on the carpets. It will be running thick through County hall and through the county halls and town halls of the country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for sparking me off on a subject about which I feel strongly. I did not use local government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has got that off his chest, perhaps we can return to Lords amendment No. 112.

Mr. Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I got carried away by the moment. Feelings are running high on the Opposition Benches.
I thought—and I still believe—that some Conservative Members enjoyed being in local government, thought that it contributed a great deal to democracy and that it underpinned parliamentary democracy in many respects. I cannot understand how those right hon. and hon. Members can now agree to a further dismantling of local government.
We are dealing with the problems that will arise in the housing revenue account and the maintenance of local authorities' housing stock because of the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), in his excellent speech, talked about the homelessness crisis in London, the Under-Secretary of State, a former leader of Wandsworth borough council, was shaking his head in disagreement as if my hon. Friend's speech was being made up on the spur of the moment from his fevered imagination rather than from factual evidence.
Anyone who knows anything about London will realise just how appalling the housing crisis is. One only has to leave the House, perhaps on the way to a reception to which hon. Members are constantly invited, and walk along the Embankment to see people sleeping in the boxes of the cardboard cities. If one goes to an excellent concert at the Festival hall, the Queen Elizabeth hall or the Purcell room—they were built, paid for and excellently maintained by the London county council and the GLC—one will see homeless young people. Surely one or two Conservative Members still have a heart and a conscience after 10 years of serving Polly Pot in No. 10. Surely they will feel a twinge of conscience when they see what is going on. We are not making any of this up. The crisis is real. Homelessness in London has doubled since the Prime Minister took office in 1979.

Mr. Pike: I recognise the problem of homelessness in London. I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises that, due to the benefit changes that have taken place this year, homelessness is occurring in many towns where it never existed. Many bed and breakfast hostels are being closed because the amount of benefit being paid to them no longer enables them to remain open and provide even minimum accommodation. The problem does not exist only in London and the big cities but now covers the length and breadth of Britain.

Mr. Banks: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I have a cutting that I was going to introduce later but I will introduce it now as it is apposite. It comes from The Sunday Correspondent this week. It is on the back of the two pages containing that weird interview with the Prime Minister. There is an even weirder picture—she has clearly lost her marbles. Page four says:
Patten acts on cardboard cities.
The two points are closely linked. When they were changing the social security regulations we warned the Ministers about what would happen. We pleaded with them, but they said they were just scare stories and alarmism that the Minister said could be expected from us. However, the facts are in the newspaper. It says:
Homeless school-leavers may again be allowed to claim social security as part of a Government campaign to stop them begging and sleeping rough. Action to cut the growing 'cardboard city' population in London and other towns by providing more hostels is to be announced later this month by Chris Patten, the Environment Secretary. It will form part of a wide-ranging review of homelessness…ministers have been forced to recognise that their virtual ban last year on social


security payments to unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds acts as a formidable deterrent to teenagers who might otherwise come in from the cold.
A report this morning by Shelter, or SHAC, said that large numbers of youngsters were being forced into prostitution and drug trading because they were desperately trying to scrape together the money to exist on the streets of London.
9 pm
The hon. Member for Harrow, West played a good and useful part in the Greater London council. I cannot understand why he does not rant and rave at the Government, as I do from time to time. They do not listen to me, but they might listen to him, because he represents an authentic voice and is an expert on local authority housing. He has sat quietly and said nothing. I find that difficult to understand.

Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend's point is made even more powerful by the fact that, until the GLC was abolished, 4,300 extra beds were available for youngsters and single homeless people. With the abolition of the GLC, those 4,300 beds went, and, with the abolition of the other metropolitan counties, even more beds went. That is why homeless people, particularly young people, are more vulnerable in London and other cities and, increasingly, in rural areas. We now find homelessness in Exeter, Bristol and other towns where we never found it before. As I said, in 1979 I could always get someone a roof over his head. Nowadays, I cannot do that.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend makes a good point. All over the country, the Government's policies are inevitably leading to greater homelessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith could say that so-called care in the community, which has meant that many people have been turned out of long-stay mental institutions, has caused distressed people to go wandering on to the streets.
I must continue to refer to London. Other hon. Members can make their own points about their own cities, but I know a little about London. In recent years I have noticed that two categories of people have suddenly appeared on the streets of London. The first category is the young. They are on the streets because of changes in social security provision and unemployment. They are being forced to move around, like an army of the dispossessed, from one cardboard city to another and from one railway arch to another.
The other category includes the many more people who are mentally incapable of looking after themselves. They have been turned out of long-term mental institutions and, in many cases, put into the so-called community, which means that their own families, who might be hard-pressed in terms of their living, social and environmental conditions, cannot manage. That creates more problems in the homes to which these people go. It may mean that they are told, "Sorry, we cannot look after you any more," and are pushed out into the street. Those two categories of people include the most appalling and dramatic statistics that we have seen for several years.

Mr. Soley: It is extremely important that Conservative Members should understand the causes of those problems. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that income support changes are crucial. Obviously, unemployment

also had a part to play. However, the other crucial factor for young people is the catastrophic decline in council house building and, at the same time, the drying up of the private rented sector. The very sector that the Government said would expand has contracted. There are 500,000 fewer houses and flats available for rent in the private rented sector than there were before, precisely because the Government pushed people to buy rather than to rent.

Mr. Banks: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. One does not need a PhD in housing administration to work out that, if we create a situation in which local authorities are not allowed to build any council houses, there will be an upsurge in homelessness. It is obvious. I should have thought that it was well within the intellectual grasp of Conservative Members to work that out.
I do not need rhetoric to argue the case. We need only to examine the statistics. A good article in "City Limits" coincided with the week-long protest against homelessness in London. If the Prime Minister would venture out of her bunker in No. 10 Downing street—the railings are not there yet, but no doubt she will have them erected at some stage; I bet that she will manage to get out every day even with the railings there—and go to the other side of Whitehall, she will see the young people and others who are involved in a vigil there. Why does she not talk to them and listen to them? I do not think that she listens to anybody. She would want to tell them how to tidy up their cardboard boxes to make them look more comfortable. She would say, "Wouldn't it look better if you cut a few holes and put up chintz curtains?" If she were to listen for a while, she would know a little more about what is going on in the streets of London.
The facts in "City Limits", which were taken from statistics provided by Shelter, the London research centre, and the Association of London Authorities, clearly show us the picture. The article states:
In September 1987 there were 18,906 people living in temporary accommodation in London. By March 1989 there were 24,578, an increase of 30 per cent.
Homelessness has more than doubled since 1979. The article continues:
By the beginning of 1989 over 106,000 council properties had been sold to their sitting tenants. Until the end of 1987, some 30,000 had sold up and moved on.
In 1975 local authorities started building 20,100 new homes.
That is in London.
In 1986, the figure was 1,200. The key to this whole issue is that in the mid-1970s local authorities in London were building about 25,000 new units of accommodation per year. They are now building about 1,500 per year. That is one of the main keys to homelessness in this country. As I said, one does not need a PhD or even a CSE to work out that statistical correlation.
The article continues:
In 1988 30,000 people were squatting in London.
There were 2,000 people sleeping rough in central London.
London boroughs spent almost £88 million on bed and breakfast accommodation in 1988–89. In 1981, the figure was £4·3 million.
As we in Newham will be affected by this appalling Bill, I can tell the House that we have moved on from the appalling situation in 1981 when we had nine families in a hostel because in January 1989 we had 1,151 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, non-secured lettings, private leasings and hostels. Whereas we were spending a


few thousand pounds in 1980–81 on bed-and-breakfast charges in the London borough of Newham, last year we spent £5·2 million.
We cannot afford that waste of resources. We should be putting people into decent homes, and for £5·2 million we could build a lot of them. This is craziness. It is the economics of the madhouse which, I suppose, is where the Prime Minister will end up. It is cheaper to build new units of accommodation than to house people in inadequate bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are several unique aspects to the problem of homelessness in London which the Government have signally failed to address in the past decade? The first is that the appalling cost of private rented accommodation and of private homes in London forces those on average wages to look to the public sector. Those people are suffering under the Government's policies and from their refusal to allow council house building.
The second aspect is the appalling conditions in which many homeless people have to live in the bed-and-breakfast hostels that scar our capital. Hon. Members will remember the terrible fire at a bed-and-breakfast hostel in Bayswater many years ago. Many families are in danger of perishing because of the fire risks in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
A further unique dimension—my hon. Friend has referred to this—is the millions of pounds that boroughs such as Hackney have to spend to keep people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Finally, it is impossible for those on low and middle incomes to find accommodation in the inner cities. That factor might appeal to Conservative Members because it is one reason why employers in the inner city encounter such huge problems in getting labour.

Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend who emphasises the point that I am making from the "City Limits" article, which also states:
In Kensington and Chelsea, the average price for a home is now £167,000; luxury lettings are as high as £1,000 a week; some council rents are over £100 per week
People simply cannot afford those levels of rent. Surely Conservative Members can understand that. I do not know what happens in their advice surgeries—

Ms. Abbott: They do not have any.

Mr. Banks: I am sure that some of them do, but I should be interested to know why they do not seem to be affected by the evidence that must be brought before their eyes. I do not understand how people in my area can survive.

Ms. Abbott: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is laughing.

Mr. Banks: Yes, the hon. Gentleman seems to be laughing. I assume that he is not laughing at the plight of the homeless in London because, frankly, he should hang his head in shame as should every other Conservative Member who has ventured into the Chamber this evening.
This is not a crisis that has been visited upon us by God because we are a sinful people; it is a crisis created by Government policies. Sometimes one can say that Opposition Members stir things up a bit and blame the Government for bad weather or whatever—and that might

be considered a little unreasonable—but on this occasion one can point the finger with unerring accuracy and say that the responsibility for the housing crisis in this country lies with the Government's policies. That is where the responsibility lies, and that is where we are determined that it will remain until these policies change.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I accept everything that my hon. Friend is saying about the crisis in London. I warn Conservative Members, lest they feel that it is a purely London matter and that they can be complacent on a national scale, that in Preston the homelessness situation is worsening rapidly. We have been able to avoid using bed-and-breakfast accommodation for some years. But tomorrow the local housing committee will be considering having to resume the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In other words, it is a national problem.

Mr. Banks: All local authorities are affected by this legislation. All council rents are likely to go up. It will become more difficult for all authorities to deal with the homelessness crisis. We have always been used to a degree of homelessness in London. Some people have always slept rough on the streets of the capital. That is a sad fact, but it is a fact. But it is now obvious that this depressing feature is spreading to cities throughout the country. More and more people are wandering the streets looking for somewhere to sleep at night. It is criminal of the Government to have inflicted that level of social misery on people.

Mr. Spearing: Some Conservative Members will say that people are attracted to London and exacerbate the problem. Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south of Newham, in the borough which we both represent, half of my constituents live in municipal dwellings, but that due to the policies of the Government—introducing market rents bit by bit across the whole housing sphere—there will be no opportunity for the young people of Newham to obtain, own or in some way live in council accommodation? When recently I have told the members of residents associations about the Bill, saying that many would have to live in tents in Epping forest, they have not dissented from that statement. That is what the Government are forcing people to do.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend, like me, is affected by the severe crisis in the London borough of Newham. I have not yet had an opportunity to describe in detail the situation that we face in Newham. We have tried to explain it to Ministers, but Ministers at the Department of the Environment come and go with bewildering regularity. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on being one of the few who has stayed the course, probably because he is so unnoticeable that the Prime Minister has not realised he is there. Perhaps anonymity in politics is sometimes useful. Alternatively, the right hon. Lady may know that he is such a ruthless Right-winger who is prepared to d o anything on instructions from No. 10 that she feels confident in having him in his present office. If that is so, I am surprised that he has not yet become Foreign Secretary. But given the number of shuffles we have each week, even he may end up as Foreign Secretary or as some other exotic figure of state.
On Fridays at my advice surgery young people come to see me with their children and, having been put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, wonder what the


future holds for them. For a number of reasons which I cannot fully understand, Newham is not a centre for hotels. We must move our people out to other parts of London, putting them in Westminister, Paddington, Ilford and Romford. Imagine the destruction that that inflicts on the family unit. The education of the children is disrupted and many of the people involved find it impossible to hold down a job.
Those are the human realities behind the policies that are pursued ruthlessly and relentlessly by the Government. They do not seem to care. I can only assume that some calculation has been made to the effect that as the people about whom we are talking are so depressed over what is happening—struggling hard to survive on an hourly basis from morning to night—they do not provide any political threat to the Government.
No hon. Members will have to sleep rough on the Embankment or go to the type of bed-and-breakfast accommodation that I have described; they will stay in decent hotels because the allowances are good. I know an awful lot of people in the borough of Newham who would like to receive the overnight allowances that are given to hon. Members who live outside London to enable them to have a decent dinner and a decent sleep. I do not object to Conservative Members having a decent dinner. They get many decent dinners—in many cases it is someone else's dinner and it is certainly paid for by someone else. Why should they vote for decent dinners and decent homes for themselves and deprive others of exactly those benefits? That smacks of hypocrisy, but that is what one associates with the Conservatives.
9.15 pm
I do not know how people are surviving in London or Preston on a daily basis. All I know is that the Opposition must stand up and fight for them because they cannot fight for themselves. No hon. Member has to suffer their deprivations, so we shall continue to speak for them even though, with the poll tax and the new regulations, more and more of those people are moving out of the political process altogether. That is why Conservative Members do not care. Those homeless people do not pose any political threat as voters to the fortunes of the Government. They are a threat to those fortunes, however, because the conscience of the nation has been aroused by their plight. We are able to articulate their plight in this place and we are able to campaign for changes not only in policies but, ultimately, in Government. It is only with a change in Government that the homeless of London, Preston, Burnley, Liverpool and elsewhere will have a decent chance.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend is right that the situation is getting worse. Just after the war, when we were faced with the destruction of so many homes, the Government of the time, which happened to be Labour, gave hope to the people because they built council houses. I lived in two rooms for 12 years and I know about housing problems. At least we had the hope, however, that, sooner or later, we would get council accommodation. It so happened that I did not take up that accommodation. After the war we got all the people off the streets, apart from those who wanted to stay out there. After the war one only saw a few people living on the

streets. Now there is no hope. Masses of youngsters come to London from Liverpool and the like looking for jobs, but they end up under the arches or elsewhere. The indictment against the Government is that they have taken hope away from people.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend speaks with great experience and wisdom. We know that it was Conservative and Labour local authorities that gave people the opportunity of a decent home. That chance has been destroyed and, as far as the Government are concerned, local authorities are rather like the trade unions, enemies within.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as he is talking about an important subject. I have looked carefully at the amendments in this group, however, and I do not believe that a single word of the hon. Gentleman's speech, important though it may be, relates to those amendments.

Mr. Speaker: I have been in the Chamber for 10 minutes and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is out of order as this is a pretty wide debate on housing. The hon. Gentleman should look at the amendments, however, and ensure that his comments relate to them.

Mr. Banks: I have kept the amendments under my thumb all the time. I have made sure that I stayed in order and I wait for you, Mr. Speaker to decide when I am out of order rather than the hon. Member for Harrow, West. That hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the things I said about him and his contribution to local government, has chosen not to intervene positively in this debate even though he has had ample opportunity to do so.
The Opposition amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State takes into account the impact of the proposed changes in the Bill on rents and housing maintenance before he makes any determination. Those amendments must be illustrated and that is what I have been doing by showing what effect the Bill will have in areas like Newham.
No doubt the hon. Member for Harrow, West feels very uncomfortable. He knows that I am speaking the truth. It must be a very uncomfortable experience for him to hear the truth. He must be feeling very guilty, despondent and ashamed, and so he should.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) emphasised that this debate is about the housing revenue account. He is right. Under this group of Lords amendments local authorities will not have to keep a housing revenue account. As I said in my opening speech, if they do not keep the account, what will happen to the homeless?

Mr. Banks: That is precisely the point. The hon. Member for Harrow, West knows a bit about this. I hope and trust that he will have a very difficult time tomorrow when he tries to act as a craven apologist for the Government's policy on housing when he talks to housing experts.
In Newham, we have tried desperately to advise Ministers about the likely impact of the Bill and why our amendments to Lords amendment No. 119 should be accepted to ameliorate the position. We have taken several


Ministers around Newham and our last briefing was for the current Minister for the Environment and Countryside. We are grateful for the opportunity to talk to Ministers. We would sit down with the devil himself—and we did in terms of the previous Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and I want to get the best deal possible for Newham. The problems in our borough are bad and they will be made so much worse by the Bill if it is not amended tonight.
Newham has the highest number of unsatisfactory dwellings of any London borough. Those dwellings are unfit and lack basic amenities. There is a severe shortage of dwellings in Newham and we have the fastest increase in homelessness in London. I have told Conservative Members just how dramatically that has increased over the past four or five years. Newham also has more dwellings lacking inside WCs and baths than any other London borough and the highest proportion of dwellings lacking facilities in England. Fifty-five per cent. of the borough's housing was built before the first world war, and 80 per cent. of the private sector stock is of the same age. It is estimated that the total cost of repairing the private sector stock is £328 million. The proportion of unfit private properties increased from 21 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in 1985 while in London as a whole the proportion fell from 10 per cent. to 6 per cent.
There is also severe overcrowding in Newham, a problem that is suffered disproportionately by ethnic minority households. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South knows more about the public sector than I. In that area, Newham has a specific problem with 107 tower blocks of more than eight storeys. Many of those blocks suffer from structural problems or have reached an age when services need renewing. Nine complete tower blocks in south Canning Town in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South are currently vacant. Others are being decanted and Ronan Point has been demolished.
How on earth can we deal with those problems with the extra restrictions which this Bill will introduce? We just want to deal with the problems. We are not trying—[Interruption.] Clearly, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has had a very good dinner. I welcome her to our proceedings, although she has come very late.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend mentioned Ronan Point and its sisters. Is he aware that the borough made strenuous efforts to fulfil the Government's objective of going into partnership with private firms to redevelop these areas so that people could afford the rents in the houses with gardens that would replace the thousand empty flats in the sky? However, the economics of housing and interest rates made that very difficult, even with the best will in the world. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to take account of that, because we have done our best to try to meet the Government's criteria? The sums just do not add up.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is right. Newham borough council has attempted to arrange partnership dealings with the private sector, and Ministers and civil servants from the Department of the Environment know that to be true.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Banks: We have tried everything and we shall try everything. We are so desperate that I will even listen to the hon. Lady, in case she says something sensible for the first time since she was elected.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman referred to a vast number of tower blocks. Why were they built? It so happens that I was vice-chairman of housing in the London borough of Camden. We inherited many tower blocks, both built and being built, but we did not build a single one during the time of our Conservative administration because we did not believe in them. The hon. Gentleman has been landed with the problem because he built the blooming things.

Mr. Banks: I shall excuse the slight hint of hysteria because hysteria and lunacy are catching among Conservative Members. Because of cost yardsticks and because of requirements laid down by Conservative and Labour Governments, local authorities thought that tower blocks were the best way to meet their housing problem—

Mr. George J. Buckley: The only way.

Mr. Banks: Yes. I am no hack; I do not go around defending past decisions that I would not have supported. I was on Lambeth borough council when we were still being pressurised into building tower blocks, and I resisted that Labour council's attempts to construct more of them. They are not the sort of environment in which people should be placed.
Wandsworth has sold some of its tower blocks. Such blocks can provide luxury accommodation, but that means swimming pools, porterage, security alarms and all sorts of facilities that no local authority would be allowed to put in. We could turn all our tower blocks, even though I do not like them, into small heavens on earth if we were given the resources by central Government—but will we get them, and will the hon. Lady help us to get them?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Why not imitate what was done in part of Liverpool and go into partnership with the private sector? When we took over in Camden we housed exactly the same number of people per acre by building in six steps—two storeys, then another two and then another two—with lifts to alternate floors. In that way we housed the same number of people without the appalling way of life involved in tower blocks.

Mr. Banks: I do not disagree. I have said that many decisions taken by Tory and Labour-controlled Labour authorities under Governments of both complexions are not defensible in retrospect. They were explicable and understandable, but they were indefensible in social terms. I am trying to deal with the problem that we haw inherited. It is no good the hon. Lady saying that we should not have built these blocks. Rightly or wrongly, we built them and now we have to try to deal with them. The problem is not only in Newham; it is found in Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, Glasgow and many other cities.
It was not only Labour local authorities that built tower blocks; all local authorities built them. Apart from anything else, they were part of the fashion, and architects and planners wanted to destroy all the existing properties and start from a green field site and build vertical streets. I should like to get hold of some of those architects and planners, put them on the 22nd floor, nail the door and


leave them there for a few years to see what it is like. Architects, planners and developers do not live in such places; they just build them for other people to live in. They live in nice rural retreats deep in the country.
9.30 pm
I say to those people and to hon. Members that by all means they should have the good things in life, but they should not deny them to other people. That is precisely what the Government do day in day out with the sort of policies that they pursue. I have made my point about the amendments. The Minister should remember that we have not invented the housing crisis in London. It has been created by the policies of the Government. If the Government are not prepared to change those policies, they should go, and every homeless person will throw his hands in the air and cheer to the echo the end of this Government and their damnable policies.

Mr. Chope: At times during the debate Opposition Members have been hysterical but I suppose they can be congratulated on demonstrating that they are still in quite good voice and capable of filibustering. The Opposition have certainly indulged in much bluster on the issue.
I find it rather depressing that most Opposition Members have continued to repeat the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Government policy. In Committee and subsequently, those Opposition views have been shown to be totally inaccurate. They are short of policies of their own and are therefore trying to attack policies that they are inventing and attributing to the Government. I assure the House that Government policy on these matters is very different from the policy that has been represented by the Opposition.
We heard in the debate the familiar but false accusation about the rents policy. The Government do not intend to push council rents to market levels. We want only market-related patterns of rents. We are not interested either in capital value rents. It should be obvious from our proposals for 1990–91, with minimum increases of 95p and increases damped everywhere, that we are not seeking to establish market rents, except perhaps in areas where rents are very low.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said that we are seeking to control council rents. The hon. Gentleman interpreted our 95p guideline as the imposition of a 95p minimum increase whether or not councils want it. That is nonsense. The Bill explicitly allows authorities to determine their own budgets and they may set rents higher or lower than the guideline if they wish to budget for an appropriate level of service.
The hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) failed to understand that their council tenants will benefit next year as a direct result of the Government's policies on rents. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said he thought that rents should go up next year by about £1·95. Opposition policy is that there should be the same increase everywhere. That is an absurd proposition and that is why we want to have the new system. Under that system the constituencies of

the hon. Members that I have mentioned will benefit. It is surprising that none of those hon. Members was able to recognise that during the debate.
Rent rebates have also been mentioned tonight.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: If I have time, I shall try to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
We have also seen an extraordinary distortion of the Bill's provision for rent rebates. The hon. Member for Hammersmith persists in asserting that the better-off tenants will pay the rebates of their neighbours. This is nonsense, as has been said in earlier debates. We shall simply be proposing rent guidelines at sensible levels. Where an authority can meet the costs of those rebates, partly or in full, it is right for it to do so. However, most authorities will always require assistance from subsidy, and we can say categorically that if an authority gets its rents higher than the guidelines for any reason, then the higher cost of rebates will be met in full by our subsidy. Other tenants will not have to meet it.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: I will not give way. I gave way dozens of times.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: I am the first hon. Member to speak from the Government Benches for about four hours. I gave way many times during my opening speech, and I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I have to reply to the points that have been made, and I am seeking to do that.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member spoke for 45 minutes and now wishes to deprive me of some of my time.
The hon. Member for City of Durham was one of the many who got things completely wrong about rates rebates. I understand that he actually served on the Committee examining the Bill, so I can be less forgiving towards him than I might be towards an hon. Member who had not done so. The hon. Gentleman has asserted that the housing revenue account will have to bear 3 per cent. of the cost of rebates. He was wrong. Although the present rate of subsidy on rebates is 97 per cent., under the new system we shall take 100 per cent. of the cost of rebates into calculation of the housing revenue account subsidy.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on this issue on more than one occasion during my earlier speech, and he is doing his Back-Bench colleagues a disservice in not allowing me to reply to some of the points that they have made.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) knows that if the Minister does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Chope: I see no purpose in mere repetition of points made earlier. The hon. Member intervened on two or three occasions and I gave him the answers about rebates on three occasions.

Mr. Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have sat through debates in which we considered amendments from the other place, and I thought that the tradition was that we clarified the detail. In that case, if a Minister makes a statement, surely it is incumbent on him to allow us to challenge it, or it will not be questioned. Some of the Minister's remarks clearly demonstrate that he does not understand the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know, as the House knows, that if an hon. Member, or a Minister, does not wish to give way, then those wishing to intervene must not persist in rising.

Mr. Chope: I shall continue with examples of the way in which Opposition Members have this issue so wrong. The hon. Member for City of Durham asserted that Durham would have a negative subsidy entitlement. That is extremely unlikely. Negative subsidy entitlement arises only when, in the notional account, income from rents plus interest on receipts is more than expenditure on management and maintenance, loan charges and rent rebate. Try as I might, I cannot draw up a notional account for Durham in which that happens. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and does his sums again.
The hon. Member for City of Durham made another point, about the shortage of resources for investment. If capital receipts have been used for genuine capital works, we have said that we will take that into account in housing investment programme allocations.

Mr. Battle: When?

Mr. Chope: Discussions are taking place at the moment on the housing investment programme allocations for the coming year. Those meetings are taking place at present.
The hon. Member for City of Durham expressed fears about the lack of allocations. I suggest that before he makes such alarmist remarks he waits for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member also asked about direct labour organisation profits. They should go to the general fund. If they are then transferred to the housing revenue account, that is another form of rate fund contribution. The ring fence will prevent such contributions, but—I do not think that the hon. Member understood this—subsidy will cover the gap caused by loss of those contributions so that there will be no extra rent increase as a result.

Mr. Steinberg: Is that a guarantee?

Mr. Chope: That is a guarantee. I have just told the hon. Gentleman how the new system will work. I find it depressing that so many Opposition Members, although they have served on the Committee, do not understand the way in which the new system will operate.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have talked during the debate about the plight of homeless people. Homeless people, whether young or old, deserve better than to be used as pawns by the Opposition.
The Opposition seem to will the end, but deny the means. They and their local authorities preside over tens of

thousands of empty council properties. They fail to collect rents from existing council tenants and thereby deprive the homeless of further resources.

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mr. Chope: I shall not give way. The Government take seriously the plight of the young and the homeless in our major cities—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Chope: We have considered a number of reports about homelessness and the problems of the homeless while undertaking our review of legislation on the homeless. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce our conclusions shortly.
Planned public investment in housing during the next three years will total nearly £13 billion. The thrust of our housing policy is aimed at helping areas with the greatest need, by extending the role and funding of housing associations and by expanding the private sector, which so many Opposition Members seem to despise. To tackle the important issue of the single homeless, we are encouraging people to take in lodgers.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope: Furthermore, we are targeting resources on the greatest need. That is why we have made revisions to the new capital control system.
The new housing revenue account system, which is the basis of the debate, will make local authorities more accountable to tenants, promote efficiency and encourage a fairer, better-targeted means of distributing taxpayers' money to those who need it. That is the best way to help the homeless.
We have a genuine concern for the homeless. If Opposition Members were genuinely concerned, they would try to put something into action at a local level.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the way that we conduct the proceedings of the House. We often hear things in the House with which we disagree, but we must listen.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it would be common courtesy for the Minister to give way. He has been given the permission of the House to make a second speech in the debate and he should at least give way once.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is up to the Minister.

Mr. Chope: I detect that the House is getting somewhat impatient to vote after such a lengthy debate. I think that we have won the argument, and that, from the Opposition, we have had fluster and filibuster.

Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short supplementary speech. I had not planned on making it. On Report, no fewer than 606 amendments were put before us. Many of them were introduced by the Government. For the Minister to fail to give way to my hon. Friends who wished to intervene in such an important debate is a sign of weakness, and it will


do him no good. I wished to raise the issue which he failed to deal with in his opening speech, which is that rentpayers in one area will subsidise the housing benefit of people in the same area. That means that the poor will subsidise the poorest. I refer to clause 78, which remains unamended after the Bill's consideration by another place. The Minister's predecessor and the previous Secretary of State for the Environment accepted that what we were saying was basically true although they would not accept the phrase—I understand why—"the poor subsidising the poorest". They accepted, however, that our argument was right.
I shall try to quote as accurately as I can the Minister's words. He tried to slide them through quickly, but I shall repeat them to the best of my memory. We can check my recollection with the report in Hansard. He said, "If there is a surplus, they will have to use that to meet rent rebates." The surplus can accrue only from other people's rents. The Bill ring-fences accounts so that rents must be used only for housing. They cannot be used in any other sector. It is not possible to translate money from the rate fund to the rent fund.
In other words, the rebate bill is met in part by using surplus rent money when there is some. The only way in which the Minister is partially right is that, when there is no surplus, that option does not arise. As soon as there is a surplus, however, the local authority has no option but to use it to pay the housing benefit bill. We say that that is a classic example of the poor subsidising the poorest. It was the Minister's failure to respond to that issue that led him into so much trouble.
I understand why the Minister would not give way. I can interpret what he said thereafter only as that somehow the bill would be met. Is he giving the House a commitment that, where there is a surplus which must be used to meet the housing benefit bill, the Government will step in and pay the difference? If the Minister cannot answer that question, he either does not understand it or, more likely, he is deliberately trying to avoid the issue because he appreciates that it is embarrassing for the Government.

Mr. Chope: rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall give way to the Minister.

Mr. Chope: There is no dispute among my right hon. and hon. Friends. If there is a surplus, it will be taken into account when it comes to a subsidy. If there is a surplus on the housing revenue account, it is likely that there will be less subsidy entitlement than if there is not. I thought that Opposition Members would consider that a sensible and fair way of proceeding.

Mr. Soley: We had to drag the truth out of him but he has now conceded that where there is a surplus, it will be used to pay the housing benefit bill. That will mean that poor rentpayers who are just outside the housing benefit net, will end up paying the housing benefit of their neighbours. That is the truth, the Minister knows it, and in effect he has conceded that it is true.
In his reply, the Minister referred again to rent collection. It was noticeable that he did not answer the question that I put to him in my opening speech about the report that the Audit Commission is about to produce, of

which he and his colleagues may be aware. The report states clearly that rent arrears are increasing in local authorities of all political complexions because of cuts in housing benefit. Yet he chose to start the hare that some people who could afford to do so are not paying their rent. Does he think that the Audit Commission report is wrong or right?

Mr. Chope: I have not seen the report, so I cannot be expected to comment on it. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue for the first time this evening. Under this Government, total payments of housing benefit have doubled. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is because the rents were increased."]

Mr. Soley: This would be hilarious if it were not so tragic. Housing benefit has increased, despite cuts, because the Government have driven up housing costs and cut income support. As the previous Secretary of State conceded, expenditure on housing benefit has increased dramatically in some areas of the south where rents are high. An unemployed person living in a private-sector flat with a market rent of £70 a week—which is not unusual in London, certainly not in my constituency—has all his rent. paid through housing benefit. The system is daft. It does not even save public expenditure as the Government wish it to do. It has never helped people to pay their rent, as it should.
The Minister also referred to the old canard of empty local authority flats. He has not heard about this matter before, so he had better remember it well. The average number of empty local authority properties is 2·5 per cent. of the housing stock. For housing associations it is 3·2 per cent.—slightly higher but both are good. For the private sector, it is 4·5 per cent. The worst offenders of all are the Government. Nearly 6 per cent. of their properties are empty. I do not refer only to Ministry of Defence properties. One in five Metropolitan police houses are empty.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) knows nothing about that. His own local authority has built a good housing development which he tried to prevent. That is why he walks by on the other side of the road when he sees the "homeless and hungry" signs. When he was a head teacher, I took my children away from his school because I did not want them to have his morality.
The Minister forgets that 6 per cent. of Department of the Environment properties are empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Will the Minister take immediate steps to fill them? No, a year ago, his predecessor said that the Department would try to sell them. It is still trying to do so. The constituency of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has more empty Department of the Environment properties than any other. That is the sort of nonsense that the Government get into.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want his remarks to be taken out of context. Does he accept that the number of empty Department of the Environment properties is about 30?

Mr. Soley: I am not interested in that. Someone with a small number of properties should be a good landlord. If a landlord has thousands of properties, I would expect difficulties. Someone with only a few hundred, a few dozen or tens of properties should be a good landlord. The Minister's Department is an incompetent landlord. The


properties have been empty for years. In my constituency, no fewer than 30 fiats and houses, 60 if we include under-occupied houses, have been empty for nine years. What will the Department of the Environment do with them? It will demolish four and five-bedroomed Victorian houses and flats. At the same time, the hon. Member for Ealing, North is walking by on the other side, away from the homeless and the hungry.
My last point relates to the contraction of the private sector. A few hon. Members, including the Minister, said that the answer to the problems lay in expanding the private sector. Let us leave aside the issue of what happened some years ago and stick to what has been happening recently. We must remember that since 1980 the Government have been saying that they were abolishing the Rent Acts because it would be easier for private developers to let property. In fact, the private sector is continuing to decline. There are 500,000 fewer homes available for rent in the private sector than there were nine years ago. In London, where the Rent Acts have not really applied for several years, well over half the lets are outside the Rent Acts. As the Government make it easier to evict, the contraction of the private sector actually accelerates.
The reason for that is not hard to find. We need only to go back to 1957, when the word "Rachmanism" was introduced into the English language. The strange fact is—it is one that the Minister does not understand—that Rachman was not a bad landlord; he was just a bad property developer. He did not want to be a landlord, any more than Hoogstraten wants to be one. They only want people in their properties for a very short time, and then want to sell, because buying and selling houses is more profitable than renting them. That will remain true even when the Minister achieves market rents, as he has now done, because of the subsidy system for the owner-occupied sector. That is why the private sector is declining. The big mistake that the Government have made is to axe the council house sector without providing an alternative.
Our amendments are an attempt to redress the balance by allowing local authorities to build, repair and renovate. The Government are preventing them from doing that, and that is why we shall divide the House on amendment (b).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 113 to 118 agreed to.

Clause 77

CALCULATION OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

SUBSIDY

Lords amendment: No. 119, in page 81, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 82 and insert—
(a) any amounts which fall to be or were credited or debited to the authority's Housing Revenue Account for that year or any previous year;
(b) any amounts which, on such assumptions as the Secretary of State may determine (whether or not borne out or likely to be borne out by events), would fall to be or would have been so credited or debited; and
(c) such other matters relating to the authority, or to (or to tenants of) houses and other property which are or have been within the account, as he thinks fit;
and the Secretary of State may make any determination falling to be made for the purposes of a formula on the basis of information received by him on or before such date as he thinks fit.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, a formula may require it to be assumed that the amount for any year of the rental income or housing expenditure of each authority (or each authority in England or in Wales) is to be determined—
(a) by taking the amount which the Secretary of State considers (having regard, amongst other things, to past and expected movements in incomes, costs and prices) should be or should have been the aggregate amount for that year of the rental incomes or, as the case may be, the housing expenditure of all of the authorities (or all of the authorities in England or Wales) taken together; and
(b) by apportioning that amount between them in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate (which may involve, if he thinks fit. inferring the aggregate values of the houses and other property within their respective Housing Revenue Accounts from the average values of any of the houses and other property which they have disposed of);
and in this subsection "rental income" means income falling within item I of Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act and "housing expenditure" means expenditure falling within item 1 of Part II of that Schedule or falling to be debited to the authorities' Housing Repairs Accounts."

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment (b), in line 13, leave out 'and' and insert
'but, in determining any formula under this section for the year beginning 1st April 1990, the Secretary of State shall riot assume an increase in the average rent payable by tenants of a local housing authority which is greater than the highest local contribution differential for the purposes of section 425 of the Housing Act 1985 for that authority for any year after that ending 31st March 1986 and subject to this requirement'.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 289.

Division No. 370]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cartwright, John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alton, David
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Cummings, John


Beith, A. J.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John


Bennett, A. F.(D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Bradley, Keith
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Caborn, Richard
Eadie, Alexander


Callaghan, Jim
Eastham, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fearn, Ronald






Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, William


Galloway, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, Martin


Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, Dr John


Henderson, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hinchliffe, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ruddock, Joan


Howells, Geraint
Salmond, Alex


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hoyle, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Sillars, Jim


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Steinberg, Gerry


Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ron
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terry
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loyden, Eddie
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAllion, John
Turner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Vaz, Keith


McCartney, Ian
Wall, Pat


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wallace, James


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKelvey, William
Wareing, Robert N.


McLeish, Henry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Madden, Max
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Martlew, Eric
Worthington, Tony


Maxton, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meacher, Michael



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard





Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hawkins, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Irving, Charles


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Favell, Tony
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lilley, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Franks, Cecil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David






Miller, Sir Hal
Speller, Tony


Mills, Iain
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Squire, Robin


Mitchell, Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patnick, Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Portillo, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Ward, John


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wheeler, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government and Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr.Nicholas Baker]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 77.

Divlsion No. 371]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Benyon, W.


Arbuthnot, James
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Body, Sir Richard





Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Boswell, Tim
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Harris, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Haselhurst, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hawkins, Christopher


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayes, Jerry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Chris
Hill, James


Butterfill, John
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Janman, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kilfedder, James


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moore, Rt Hon John






Moss, Malcolm
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mudd, David
Steen, Anthony


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rost, Peter
Walden, George


Rowe, Andrew
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Hon Tom
Ward, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Squire, Robin





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Alton, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beith, A. J.
Grocott, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Illsley, Eric


Cartwright, John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clay, Bob
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Martlew, Eric


Fearn, Ronald
Maxton, John


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan





Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wall, Pat


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. James Wallace.


Steinberg, Gerry



Vaz, Keith

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from either the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Health about the state of the ambulance service in London? The Secretary of State claimed in the Chamber this afternoon that union members of the London ambulance service were refusing to provide a 999 service, a statement which has been emphatically denied. We now understand that some calls are being routed directly to ambulance stations because the police and the Ministry of Defence, which have been brought in to break the dispute, are unable to cope with the emergency calls. Clearly this is now a serious situation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no such request.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mrs. Mahon: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Tonight, on both the 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock news, the Secretary of State for Health said that a letter would be delivered to the ambulance negotiators in respect of the emergency services, which the—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as may be, but it is not a matter of order for me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: No; it is not a matter of order for me.

Mr. Skinner: Well, on another point of order then, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced occupant of a chair, so let his point be in order because otherwise I shall deal with it in the way in which I am sure that he would.

Mr. Skinner: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, quite a number of occasions during your tenure of office when there have been important developments—and bringing in the Army is an important development politically. In view of the reports on the 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock news, and since we had a statement earlier today on this in your presence, and because of the contradictory statements that are now flowing from both the Secretary of State for Health and the union negotiators, I should have thought


it a good idea for the Government to make a further statement to the House so that the matter can be cleared up and we can support the ambulance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been heard by those responsible on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Lords amendments again considered.

Lords amendment No. 119 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 120 to 128 and 318 to 327 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 98

GRANTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS

Lords amendment: No. 135, in page 93, line 27, after "required" insert "(a)"

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: Nos. 136 to 177, No. 178 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Nos. 179 to 215, No. 216 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Nos. 217 to 255.

Mr. Howard: This group of amendments to part VIII falls conveniently into five broad headings, and I shall deal with each in turn. The largest group insert into this part of the Bill provisions to enable grant to be paid by local authorities towards the cost of repairs or improvements to the common parts of buildings and to houses in multiple occupation. These account for 62 of the amendments listed, of which 18 are substantive and the remainder minor or consequential. The main provisions for common parts grants are found in amendments Nos. 140, 151, 162, 186 and 197; and for houses in multiple occupation grant, these are amendments Nos. 142, 161, 201, 203 and 215.
10.30 pm
Three further amendments are proposed to clarify the operation of common parts grants. The first is a consequential amendment to clause 106, which provides for the test of resources to be applied in the case of a landlord's application for common parts grant. It inserts a new subsection which is the equivalent to that part of Lords amendment No. 185 which deals with HMO grants. It provides for the rental income of each dwelling in a building to be taken into account in the assessment of a landlord's income. Without this amendment there is doubt as to whether the aggregate rental income could be assessed.
The second is a minor amendment to Lords amendment No. 216. It clarifies the persons from whom grant can be recovered in the event of the sale of a building in respect of which a landlord has received a common parts grant.
The third is a consequential amendment to clause 117, which provides a similar clarification in respect of voluntary repayment of grant. It was always our intention to introduce these provisions, as was pointed out on Second Reading. The reason why it was not possible to bring them forward in time for consideration in this House at an earlier stage was simply one of drafting time. Both grant provisions were widely welcomed in another place.
The second group of amendments seeks to clarify our intentions as regards the working of the new grant system. I include within these the amendments—principally Nos. 144, 145 and 208—which enable the costs of fees and charges incurred by applicants in preparing their applications to be grant-aided. This is the case at present under the current grant system, but these amendments provide a specific power for the first time to avoid any doubt about the matter.
I also include amendments Nos. 179 and 180 which make clear that in assessing the income of a landlord for grant purposes it will be possible to recognise explicitly the fact that not all landlords are able to let on an assured tenancy basis. This mans that an authority, in applying the test of resources to a landlord letting on a registered rent, will be required to take into account the reduced rental income that will be available to that landlord. It also means, of course, that the tenants of a landlord letting on such a basis stand to benefit from the larger grant that would be available in those circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 181 to 185 also clarify the position as regards landlords who are charities. These have the effect of requiring local authorities to have regard to the income which might reasonably be available to such landlords from other sources, primarily resources which may specifically be earmarked for repairs and improvements within covenants.
Amendments Nos. 163, 187 and 188 form a third convenient grouping which have the effect of requiring a local authority to approve an application made by a landlord where that landlord has been served a notice requiring certain repairs to be carried out; grant entitlement, of course, will be determined by the appropriate test of resources. These amendments very much preserve the status quo in that grants are mandatory under similar circumstances where a notice has been served under the current system.
Amendments Nos. 191 to 195 have the effect of widening the range of purposes for which authorities are required to approve a disabled facilities grant. In particular, works for the purpose of providing a bedroom accessible to the disabled person, and of improving or providing the heating system, would be brought within the scope of the mandatory grant provisions. These amendments were welcomed by all sides in the other place.

Mr. Paul Murphy: My hon. Friends and I will not oppose these amendments. Indeed, some of them are welcome, in particular those which provide grants for the provision of facilities such as heating systems for the disabled. We also welcome the way in which the new grant system will enable fees to be met partly by local government.
But we cannot welcome the fact that the basic principles underlying the clauses to which those amendments refer have not been changed. In our view, improvement grants generally should have the aim of improving the housing stock. Grants of this kind should relate to property as well as to people. We believe that the Government aim to shift the balance from public grant aid to private finance, as they have done with the social fund and as they propose to do with student loans.
Large parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales, will be seriously disadvantaged by the proposals to which minor amendments have been made because the Government did not change their mind while the Bill was


in the other place. Housing in Wales is older and in a worse condition than that elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Wales also has a higher percentage of elderly owner-occupiers and incomes are lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Wales, 77 per cent. of owner-occupiers of unfit housing earn less than £9,000 compared with 62 per cent. in England and 75 per cent. of Welsh people live in poorly repaired housing compared with 45 per cent. in England.
Obviously no one would suggest that the complicated grant system that has operated in the past should continue. Everyone welcomes the simplified system, but the proposals before us are unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. A number of local authorities and local authority associations have already informed the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office that the transitional arrangements from the old to the new system leave a great deal to be desired. There is a substantial backlog of grant applications. In Wales 40,000 applications are still outstanding, but they could be cleared with the capital expenditure of £200 million on a three-year programme. In Britain as a whole there are 300,000 outstanding applications.
Despite the amendments we are considering, it is clear that the costs of the new system will be extremely high. The Institute of Housing reckons that costs will increase by 5 per cent. because of the new system and the unnecessary bureaucracy. The Association of District Councils reckons that 20 per cent. more staff will he needed to deal with improvement grants as a direct consequence of this part of the Bill. The association is right to ask for at least a 90 per cent grant towards those extra costs.
It is also clear that the overall capital for improvement grants will be reduced as a result of cuts and the new capital control system. The Department of the Environment consultative paper, which is all we can go on at the moment, said that the Government contribution towards such grants is likely to be about 75 per cent. or even less. At the moment that contribution is between 75 and 100 per cent. All the local government associations have argued that that contribution should be 90 per cent. at least.
The proposals do nothing to stamp out cowboy builders. Rents for private rented accommodation will also increase despite the welcome changes that the Minister has just announced. Unquestionably the biggest drawback is that the Government have not changed their mind on means-testing for eligibility for improvement grants. That testing is opposed by 19 organisations directly associated with housing. The Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Institute of Housing, the Chief Environmental Health Officers Association, the Building Employers Confederation and the National Home Improvement Council have told the Government that the new proposals to means-test eligibility for improvement grants will effectively mean that fewer people, especially those who are older, will take up improvement grants in those areas in desperate need of them. The Government should heed that advice as it reflects a wide spectrum of opinion.
Under the present system, one in four applicants are eligible, but in future that will be reduced to one in nine. Only 35 per cent. will be eligible for grant under the new

system. A household with an average income that wants £4,000 worth of work undertaken will receive only £300 of improvement grant towards the cost of that work. Those earning more than £13,000 will not be eligible for anything.
We are concerned that first-time buyers in particular will he badly hit in the sense that those likely to receive grant will not get mortgages and those who can get mortgages will not get grants. The unfit empty houses in the north of England, Wales and elsewhere, which are normally purchased by first-time buyers, will be seriously at risk.
The means test will hit the Government's main supporters—elderly owner-occupiers. As the Association of Metropolitan Authorities stated, that group is increasing. They generally have neither the resources nor the interest in large-scale remedial work. The introduction of the means test will be a further disincentive to those people and will be a real deterrent. An old couple in their 60s or 70s will not want to be burdened by the complications of having to go through the new system. Even fewer older people will take up the grant. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to say in a year's time, no matter where they come from, that, as a result of these clauses, fewer old people will have taken up the improvement grants. That will be to the detriment of our housing stock.
Household income should not be used as a means for determining the level of income for a property. A longer period should be used and mortgages should be taken into account when considering means testing. Despite the improvement which we welcome, the disabled will be hit. Means testing was always excluded from improvement grants for the disabled. We believe that a test of disability should govern eligibility. Savings of £20,000 and not £5,000 should he taken into account and those on the lowest incomes will not receive grant at all.
The Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment have already shown through their surveys that the present system is hitting those who are to be targeted by the Government's present proposals. At the moment, the people in Wales, the north of England and elsewhere who are applying for improvement grants, those who need them most, are receiving them. That is shown in the Government's surveys.
If means testing is to be introduced, why can there not be automatic grants for pensioners and those who claim benefit? We believe that the definition of earnings is too wide, the threshold level for 100 per cent. grant is too low, and the rate at which grant is reduced is too great.
The local authority associations and those who know most intimately and deeply about the problems of housing improvement grants have put those points to the Government and the Government have turned their faces against virtually all of them. The Building Employers Confederation has said that the new scheme will do nothing to restore our older housing. There is no incentive for those on middle incomes to apply for grant.
Despite the amendments which have been made, can the Minister give us examples of where grants have been badly targeted and are being badly targeted now? The Government must also explain the reasoning behind a major switch in policy in allocating grant. There is no question but that the new system will mean that fewer people will take up grant and that seems to be the opposite of what the Government intended. Also, our older housing


stock in areas where grants are most needed will deteriorate at a rate that is unacceptable to the community and, I would have thought, to the Government.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the welcome given to the amendments by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He reserved his criticisms for matters which are not in these amendments. They are matters which have been the subject of controversy in the Chamber and in another place on numerous other occasions.
10.45 pm
It was very touching to hear the hon. Gentleman express his concern that those on higher incomes who need repairs to their penthouses in Mayfair and Belgravia should be entitled to grant.

Mr. Murphy: Would the Minister say that someone earning £13,100 a year was likely to have a penthouse in Mayfair?

Mr. Howard: No; but the hon. Gentleman's root-and-branch opposition to taking resources into account, which lies at the heart of the Government's proposals, would have that effect, too.
The worry expressed by the hon. Gentleman sat badly with his observations about the larger percentage of people on low incomes in Wales. If his figures were accurate, those people should welcome these proposals, because their whole point is to target the money that is available for home improvements on those who are least well off. That is the purpose behind the change in the system. I was also glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen recognised that the present system is extremely unsatisfactory.
There is nothing between us on these amendments, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 136 to 177 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 106

LANDLORDS

Lords amendment: No. 178, in page 98, line 39, at end insert
"and

(b) where an application for an HMO grant is accompanied by a certificate under section 102(7) above; and
(c) where, by virtue of section 128 below, sections 101 and 102 above do not apply to an application for a grant; and
(d) where an application for a grant is a landlord's common parts application"—[Mr. Howard.]

Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application

"—(1) This section applies where a landlord's common parts application has been approved by a local housing authority.

(2) It is a condition of the grant that where the applicant makes a relevant disposal (other than an exempt disposal) of the building within the initial period, he shall pay to the local housing authority on demand the amount of the grant.

(3) A condition under subsection (2) above is a local land charge and shall, subject to subsection (5) and section 117 below, remain in force with respect to the building for a period of five years from the certified date.

(4) So long as a condition under subsection (2) above remains in force with respect to a building it is binding on any person who is for the time being an owner of the building.

(5) On satisfaction of the liability arising from a demand under this section, any condition under subsection (2) above shall cease to be in force with respect to the building in question.

(6) The expressions "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" have the meanings assigned by section 116 below."—[Mr. Howard.]

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 12, leave out
'an owner of the building'
and insert
'a successor in title to that interest in the building by virtue of which, under section 105(2)(b) above, the applicant made his application'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Consequential amendment made to the Bill: (b), in page 107, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) In the case of a grant condition imposed on a landlord's common parts application any reference in subsection (2) above to the owner of the building is a reference to the applicant or any such successor in title as is referred to in section (Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application) (4) above.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 255 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 87

CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATION OF RENEWAL AREA

Lords amendment: No. 129, in page 87, line 14, at end insert "or".

Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 130 to 134.

Mr. Chope: These amendments are relatively minor. They are designed to amend definitions or to clarify the position of Crown properties and the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of the provisions in part VII.

Read a Second time.

Consequential amendment made to the Bill: (a), in page 99, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) In a case where the application is a landlord's common parts application, each of the dwellings in the building concerned shall be taken into account under paragraph (b) or paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above so as to determine an aggregate rent for the purposes of that subsection.'.—[Mr. Howard.]

Lords amendments Nos. 179 to 215 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 216, to insert the following new clause.

Amendment No. 131 requires a local authority, having declared a renewal area, to ensure the provision of a service of information and advice on repairs or improvements. It has always been our intention that this sort of service should be provided in a renewal area. This amendment puts that intention beyond doubt.

Amendment No. 133 is also straightforward. It requires a local authority to keep the same sort of records as now when they receive a contribution from the Secretary of State towards expenditure incurred under this part of the Bill. This is a safeguard necessary for propriety and auditing purposes.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister said that the amendments are minor, but they have major consequences for people living in substandard properties.
In 1986 the English house condition survey was carried out, and it was published by the Government last November. It shows beyond any doubt that there has been virtually no improvement to hard core poor housing in the five years since the previous survey.
The survey shows that 543,000 dwellings lack basic amenities, that 1,053,000 are unfit, and that 1,113,000 are in serious disrepair. It is also important to reveal that the report contains a new class of dwellings—those in poor condition. They are defined as dwellings lacking one or more basic amenities, all unfit dwellings, and those needing urgent repair to the external fabric where the cost is estimated at £1,000 or more. Altogether, 2·8 million dwellings were in poor condition and of those 2·4 million were in poor repair. Those outlines are published in the condition of housing in England section of the report.
The survey shows that 463,000 dwellings, which is 2·5 per cent. of the stock, lack basic amenities. One third of those were vacant at the time of the survey and 42 per cent. were in the private rented sector and in very poor


condition. That shows what the future holds if the Government persist in passing properties from the public to the private rented sector. It appears that the Government are set on a course of putting more properties from the public sector into the private sector, even though the report shows that the private sector does nothing to enhance the condition of properties.
We have been told about empty properties and fingers were pointed at those owned by councils. The report reveals beyond any doubt that the largest number of unoccupied dwellings at the time of the survey belonged to the private rented sector. The Government should take note of that. It is unfair to criticise local authorities because the report reveals that only 11 per cent. of local authority houses were in poor condition. It is totally unfair to criticise local authorities when the private sector is the culprit responsible for keeping empty and unfit dwellings.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does my hon. Friend agree that because of recent Government actions local authorities are finding it difficult to give grants to people who need them and that slum clearance programmes are being held back? Those two matters are building up problems for the next 20 or 30 years.

Mr. O'Brien: My colleague has touched on a point that I want to make about the resources that are necessary if houses in a poor or sub-standard condition are to be brought back into service. He is right to say that, because of the reduction in HIP allocation, houses are falling into disrepair. Basic amenities cannot be provided by the local authorities or by grants to the private sector and owner-occupiers because of the cuts in grants.
The report says that the proportion of housing in poor condition was higher in the north-west, the west midlands, Yorkshire, Humberside and the south-west than in any of the regions.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is dealing with what the Minister described as only minor amendments, but which my hon. Friend is showing are a factor in the housing crisis. The assembly of all these Cabinet Ministers and more junior Ministers on the Front Bench tells me that, now they have found the Leader of the House and dragged him in here, they are going to stop the business short. I know that my hon. Friend has some valuable points to make, so I give him the nod and the wink that he should make them in the next few minutes, because the debate will be stopped.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend's experience is showing. The array of Ministers on the Front Bench makes it obvious that my hon. Friend has made a good point. We shall see whether his tip is correct.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Where is the array of talent on the Opposition Front Benches?

Mr. O'Brien: They have gone for some refreshment, because we are going to stay here for quite a long while, if it is all right with the Leader of the House.
No one can deny the urgent need for significant increases in the level of public and private investment in the nation's housing stock. The Government's proposals in the Bill do little to encourage, and more to restrict, investment. The Association of District Councils, which is not a Labour-controlled body, published a report on

30 October which deals with the properties referred to in this part of the Bill. The title of the report is "A Time to Take Stock." It says that one in seven houses in England and Wales are in need of repair, and the bill for those repairs has rocketed to its current estimate of £36 billion. The ADC urges the Government to help to meet the bill by making more public money available to repair both private and council homes. Tory councillors are urging the Government to make money available so that houses can be repaired to a satisfactory condition, so that they can be occupied, which would help to reduce the waiting lists, and meet the needs of the homeless.
Two councillors who are members of the ADC, Lady Elizabeth Anson, and the chairman of the housing committee, Graham Facks-Martin, both appealed to the Government to make resources available because of the drastic shortage of money to improve properties. Page 17 of the report refers to a survey that finds that poor housing is occupied overwhelmingly by people on low incomes who are unable to contribute to the improvement of their properties.
11 pm
Poor stock condition is often regarded as primarily an urban problem, but the report says that, while there is a. problem in urban areas, 22 per cent. of housing in rural areas is in poor condition whereas 14 per cent. of urban housing is in poor condition. Conservative Members should consider the report carefully as there is a need for more resources to improve dwellings, more so in rural than in urban areas.
The relationship between poor repair, unfitness and lack of basic amenities in rural and urban housing is only partly explained by a higher proportion of older properties being in rural areas. Almost 40 per cent. of the rural stock was built before 1919, compared with 25 per cent. of urban stock, but some 41 per cent. of pre-1919 dwellings in rural areas are in very poor condition, compared with 33 per cent. in urban areas.
In rural areas, 48 per cent. of dwellings in the private rented sector are in poor condition, compared with 40 per cent. in urban areas. That can be explained by the higher incidence of private renting in rural areas such as East Anglia and the south-west. These statistics speak volumes about the public sector's ability to provide the right facilities in rural and urban areas.
The report says that the worst area is the north-west and that the second worst is Yorkshire and Humberside—the area that I and some of my hon. Friends represent. We have made numerous requests of the Government for additional resources to be made available to local authorities to allow repairs to be made in the private and the public sector. The issues raised by these amendments may be minor to the Minister, but they are major to people in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside.
The survey shows that, without additional resources with which to make improvements, the condition of properties, whether owner-occupied or rented in the private sector or the public sector, will deteriorate. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are here, as it is most important that we have this matter on notice. Their political colleagues in the ADC are saying that, without additional resources, the condition of properties throughout the country will get worse. I hope that they will note this serious issue.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a debatable motion and we should not let it pass as if it were merely a matter of procedure. I suspect that the Government have in mind a change in the business, and that they intend tomorrow to announce guillotine motions on the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill. The Opposition are willing to continue debating the Bill. It is 11.5 pm, but that fact should not curtail the debate. There should be strong opposition to the notion that the Government can trample on the rights of Parliament by introducing a guillotine motion on the Employment Bill when the Lords amendments to it have not yet been discussed in this place. Even if the debate on that Bill went all through tomorrow night, that would not justify a guillotine motion.
I suggest that the Government are moving progress on the Local Government and Housing Bill so that they can introduce a guillotine motion on the Employment Bill. It is most unreasonable of them to move progress at this stage and to use their seedy majority to impose two guillotine motions upon the House. That is why the Leader of the House is in his place. Apparently the Government have been scouring the House looking for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They were intent on getting him into the Chamber with a business statement. Even worse, he might repeat the trick of moving that the House should make progress and linking a business statement with that motion, which would prevent us from questioning the business statement. That manoeuvre broke a convention of the House.
The Government are using their majority to introduce a guillotine motion on the consideration of a Bill when the Lords amendments to it have not yet been debated in this place, and using their power to deny the Opposition the right to question their business statement. I hope that the fact that a junior junior Whip has had the effrontery to move progress is a sign that the Leader of the House intends to make a proper business statement that we can question.

Mr. Skinner: The Government's action is even worse than my hon. Friend suggests because for the past 80-odd hours a group of young men and women organised by Shelter have been taking part in a vigil in Abingdon gardens opposite Downing street, protesting against the housing shortage caused primarily by the Government's policies over the past 10 years and against the cardboard society that the Government have created. The Government will move their guillotine motion tomorrow at about the same time as these young people complete the 100 hours of their vigil. That will be the duration of the vigil, and that will be the Government's response to the young men and women who are trying to draw attention to the plight of the homeless. The Government do not care about the homeless. They now intend to introduce a guillotine motion to stop the debate—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman sought to catch my eye, I would call him to make a speech. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has the floor.

Mr. Skinner: One of the reasons why some of us are reluctant—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well that an intervention is a pertinent comment or a question. If he seeks to catch my eye, I shall be pleased to call him. At the moment, I have called the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have said that if an hon. Member catches your eye, you will call him. I have to tell you that the chance of anyone being called is fairly remote. Not too many minutes ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was making his speech, but in the middle of it he was stopped by the Government Whip. It is all right for you to say that we will be called, but there is not much chance of that. This is gagging and censorship.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes an important point. This is a deliberate attempt at gagging and censorship. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was making an excellent speech about the standards of housing, but the Minister will not have the opportunity to reply. My hon. Friend made wide-ranging comments about the low quality of housing in many urban areas—cities such as Bradford, where there is need for a great investment in the housing stock.
The Secretary of State visited Bradford and spoke to the Tory group's annual meeting. He tries to put on a cloak of greenery, but I must tell him that the Tory council in Bradford is attempting to push back and destroy the green belt. I hope that he will use his powers to stop the council because already there is not enough green land in Bradford. It will be a test both for the right hon. Gentleman and his pretensions and for the Tory council and its pretensions.
I shall now return to the motion. I will not be distracted by the right hon. Gentleman and his pretensions of being concerned about the environment. We know that it is not true. The aim of the motion is to prevent the House debating an important Bill. There are many hours ahead of us, and many of us are well practised and well versed in raising issues throughout the night and into the early hours of the morning. There is no reason why we should not spend another five, six, seven or eight hours debating the Bill, without even intruding on the Government's business for tomorrow.
I could have understood the Government putting forward a motion of this kind at 7 am, when there had been many hours of debate, but that is not what they are doing. This is a deliberate attempt to block debate. Their followers are disgruntled and the Government do not like it when the Opposition have the opportunity to take the initiative. They are using their majority to trample on the Opposition and to take away our right to debate this important and basic piece of legislation. The fact that the majority of Conservative Members have rushed here to vote for the Government shows how little they care about the provision of housing.

Mr. Battle: Perhaps Conservative Members are here under duress. I have sat through the whole of the debate and not one of them has spoken, other than a Minister. They are not interested in the Bill, but they are being forced reluctantly to support it.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has a point. The Minister complained that half a dozen Opposition Members had spoken, but that no Conservative Member had done so. The Opposition are concerned about the issues. We have made a number of interventions and comments because we represent the areas of deprivation, not the lush green stockbroker belt and the City spivs so amply represented on the Tory Benches. They do not care about the issues. They do not care about giving the Opposition an opportunity to put forward their points of view. That is why some of us bitterly resent this way of curtailing debate and of preventing the Opposition from properly airing their views.
There has been no attempt to extend the debate. I will not use the word filibuster because filibusters never take place in the House of Commons. There is no question but that every speech made here tonight has been to the point and, in many cases, an expression of heartfelt concern about the deteriorating provision of housing under the Tories. The Government cannot claim that the debate has been extended.

Mr. Ray Powell: I listened to my hon. Friend only a week ago speaking on the same issue of cutting time on major debates on major Bills. The Government cut the time available for debate on the Children Bill and left us with only three hours to debate 441 Government amendments which were crucial to the Bill. On one in particular, concerning the emotive issue of grandparents' rights, it was essential for us to have more time for debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's great concern on that issue, but it is not relevant to the motion.

Mr. Cryer: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. But the Government's motion has precedents which have resulted in the curtailment of debate on, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Children Bill and the Companies Bill.
The Government have overloaded Parliament with a huge amount of legislation. The Water Bill, which is being advertised in some tasteless, expensive and generally objectionable advertisements, was a huge volume of legislation. The Electricity Bill has landed in a morass because the electricity industry is so difficult to privatise because of its nature and complexity and the way in which the expensive Magnox reactors have had to be excluded. As a result of overloading Parliament and the Standing Committees, the Government are now in deep trouble. The only way in which they can meet their date for the Queen's Speech is by introducing guillotine motions.
If the Government behaved sensibly, obeyed democratic principles and gave the Opposition the right to put forward constructive amendments they would have to postpone the Queen's Speech. In some instances the Opposition reject a Bill outright, but we try, in a constructive and positive way, to improve legislation, and that is what we have done with the Local Government and Housing Bill. It is difficult because it is such a nasty piece of legislation in general. We can only put forward amendments which attempt to relieve the oppression inherent in the principles behind the Bill. We have tried to do that, but the Government are sweeping all that to one side on the basis that if the Queen's Speech does not take

place on the day that has been announced, they will be announcing to the world that they are in a mess. I understand that the Queen has a visit abroad, so any delay would be inconvenient

Mr. Skinner: It is worse than that. Parliament is due to be televised, so they would have to run some old films.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a relevant point.
An announcement would have to be made to the public at large that the Government were in a mess, and that is the truth of the matter—they are in a mess because they have overloaded the House with business. If questioned, some of the House's administrators will readily admit that the Government are now introducing so many huge chunks of primary legislation, that legislation is so complex and the House is given so little time to shape it adequately that they are depending increasingly on delegated powers. That is a very bad principle.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend talks of the complexity of legislation. He should remind the House that, as a result of the Government's failure to understand the Children Bill, the Companies Bill or this Bill, they have been lumbered with several hundred amendments on each—many more than is normal practice.
My hon. Friend has said that the Government intend to move a timetable motion tomorrow, coupling this Bill with the Employment Bill, which has not been debated since we returned to deal with the overspill of legislation after the summer recess. I wonder whether that breaks with convention, and whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker to investigate.

Mr. Cryer: I mentioned that at the outset. I consider it a matter of grave concern that the Government intend to link the two Bills. That is why the Leader of the House is present—he will have to make a business statement. This is probably unprecedented, and is linked to the motion, which has been moved to allow such a statement.

Mr. Soley: As I pointed out the other day in a point of order, 606 amendments do not merely constitute a record. for the past 50 or 100 years but probably constitute an all-time record in the history of the House. More importantly, as a result, we have been trying to deal with a Committee stage on the Floor of the House without the normal safeguards. As I pointed out yesterday, if it had been taken on the Floor in the normal way there would have been a vote, and a procedure to follow.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There were more than 400 amendments to the Children Bill, which was a consensus measure. It could be argued—and the Government did argue—that that was because of their response to changes made in Committee, but a considerable proportion of the amendments were due to Government decisions to make changes.
More than 1,000 amendments were tabled to the Companies Bill—an extraordinary number. In a point of order yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out that that made things extremely difficult for the Opposition, who are assisted by a very limited number of people compared with the army of civil servants on whom the Government can call. Not only do the Opposition have to deal with amendments at very short notice—I understand that the


amendments were not available until Monday this week—but we have to look through all of them and marshal our arguments with very limited assistance. The Opposition had to deal with 2,000 amendments on those three Bills, all of which have been subject to the guillotine. The Government are using the House as a rubber stamp. The guillotine leads to the forcing through of amendments without examination by the House.

Mr. Skinner: I should like to put the head of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) under that guillotine.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
By forcing through without examination such a large number of amendments the Government are saying something else—that the definition of legislation is not to be left to the House. There is merit in examining a Bill in detail. There is merit in a Standing Committee examining a Bill clause by clause. Since then, however, the Government have tabled a flood of new amendments—with the result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, that the Committee stage was wasted.
The unfortunate truth is that the Bill will have to be defined when it leaves this place. It is sloppy in a number of areas. Government drafting is frequently sloppy. There will be no scrutiny here because of the guillotine which will result from the business statement. Where will decisions be made? They will be made in the courts. Whenever there is ambiguity, shoddiness or sloppiness in the legislation and a dispute arises, inevitably it will have to be settled in the courts.
The business statement will lead to examination of the Bill being curtailed. Individuals will be unable to afford to go to court if there is a dispute. It will be too expensive for them. Only the local authorities will be able to do that. No wonder the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is smiling. He is a lawyer. He is smiling with the sort of contemplative preen that comes to lawyers when they know that legislation is defective and they can see all those refreshers looming up and cash tills registering as a result of the pages of controversial amendments that the Government have tabled. No hon. Member can examine them because they are all subject to the guillotine. There are days and days of sunny pastures ahead in the courts—and all the other days when the lawyers will be counting up the fees that they will get out of local authorities, which almost certainly will have to go to court to obtain definitions of the guillotined amendments.
The House should try to ensure to the best of its ability that the legislation is well defined. Sometimes we fail, but we are not even being given the opportunity to try. The purpose of the guillotine is deliberately to ensure that the House cannot scrutinise the Bill.
The Opposition's political function is to make clear to the public the defective nature of much of the legislation—for example, the water privatisation legislation, which is another huge chunk of legislation that has got the Government into such a mess. The crooked nature of selling off assets which belong to the people is shown by the Government's spurious argument that people will have a choice if they buy shares in the water industry. That is an example of legislation which is causing an enormous mess.

We oppose that on political grounds, but because of the complexity of the legislation, the Opposition have a duty to make legislation as clear as possible, so that the citizenry are not oppressed by legislation which has to be clarified in the courts, often with Tory judges and Tory lawyers lining their pockets as fast as they can.

Mr. Battle: Perhaps it is a salutary reminder that the last time we considered a housing Bill with a large number of amendments it was guillotined so we were not able to point out the impact of the great heralded proposal for housing action trusts, which were going to be the saviours of areas that needed housing investment, at the expense of local authorities. As a result, local authorities and tenants have been put to a great deal of trouble for nearly two years while they were warmed up to the proposals, which the Government will not carry out because they realised the folly of the proposals in the Bill that was rushed through the House.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for an excellent and pointed illustration of the difficulties that rushing legislation through causes to ordinary citizens. We legislate not for ourselves but for people at large.
Tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton raised some useful points about the standard of housing. He pointed out that, among other areas, the lowest standards of housing are in Yorkshire and Humberside, the area that he and I represent. I did not speak in the debate, because I was hoping that the Minister would reply at some length. My attitude was conditioned by the fact that the Minister was very upset when six or seven Labour Members raised points about earlier sections of the Bill. The Minister did not once give way, because he said that he had many points to answer. I thought that I would give the Minister the opportunity of holding forth with only our Front Bench spokesman outlining the position extremely competently and in detail, but as soon as the Minister got up the Government moved progress.
I can understand that, given the Minister's speech. He got himself into a mess. He did not take interventions because clearly he did not know the policy he was pursuing. It may well be that the Leader of the House came in and said, "Christ, it's Chope," or words to that effect, and told the Whip, "Get that motion for progress moved as fast as you can." So he strode towards the Dispatch Box and the Whip leapt in and stopped another calamity. That would explain it.
However, we are entitled to make a judgment. If the Under-Secretary of State, or whatever he is now—I am never quite sure about the moves that take place in Tory circles these days—was about to make a speech, we were entitled to make a judgment on it, and the Whips should not interfere. After all, the Minister might have read out the defensive briefing that the civil servants had prepared for him. We should be entitled to hear that. It is quite wrong for the Government Whip to stop the House hearing what the Minister has to say, because it is put on record. We often use the information in Hansard to clarify the position. Yet the House is denied that by the Whips' interference.
A number of important points have been made tonight, and I know that a number of my hon. Friends are very keen to speak on this matter, because they feel as aggrieved as I do at the piratical nature of the Government. Many of


us have criticisms of this place and recognise that there could be improvement. None the less, in general elections, about 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of people on the electoral register turn out and vote because they believe that this place represents some sort of democratic endeavour. The Government Whip moved the motion because the Government are running out of patience with democracy—not that they had much—and they are prepared to trample on it.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. One of his jobs is to clear up the mess after the Lord Mayor's parade. The result of guillotined legislation is that the orders that come before the House must be dealt with by my hon. Friend later on in Committee. Can he envisage the extent to which the legislation of this week, last week, and probably next week will be guillotined and will cause difficulties for the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee?

Mr. Cryer: I would like to spend a moment or two speculating on that point. Now that my hon. Friend reminds me, I raised this very point when the Government Whip moved the closure during my speech on the Children Bill. I received several understanding and sympathetic comments. Many hon. Members were interested in the points I was about to make. Inevitably, if this motion is passed, and if, as one supposes, the Leader of the House is to move a change of business—that is presumably why he is still hanging round—two Bills will be guillotined. Hon. Members have plenty of time in which to debate this issue. This debate is open-ended, so hon. Members can continue to speak for some time, unless the perfidious Tory Whips move another motion.
The difficulty is that the legislation will not be properly examined, and therefore problems will arise. I mentioned earlier that one of the sad reflections on the Government's legislative programme is that they are handing over too much power to Ministers. They are seeking to fill the gaps by handing delegated powers to Ministers so that they can produce a great number of statutory instruments. Because I was interested in this subject as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I looked at the figures relating to the production of statutory instruments. After a hesitant start in 1979, the number has increased virtually every year. This Government were to take legislation off the backs of the people, but they are producing more ministerial orders than the 1974–79 Labour Government about whom they bitterly complain. If that is a consequence of the motion, the facilities for dealing with delegated legislation on the scale that has arisen in the Government's legislative programme are totally inadequate.
On one day before the last recess, there were 15 statutory instruments, three of which were reported to the House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, because they were in varying degrees ultra vires, badly drafted or ambiguous, or because the Minister made an unusual use of power. There was no time for a proper debate, because so many statutory instruments were involved.
That is an illustration of the way in which time is soaked up by Ministers using their powers in primary legislation. They do not give the House adequate time in the first instance, so that the House can deal with

legislation instead of saying, "Here are some powers. The Minister can virtually produce whatever statutory instruments he wants." Before such a principle is adopted on any wider bases, the House must consider the procedure for the scrutiny and examination of statutory instruments. That is not involved in the business motion, and is therefore one reason why I oppose it.
Suppose the Whips had said, "We should finish the debate on the Bill, but we will come back to the House with a whole programme for changing the nature of legislation in this House. We're not going to have detailed debate and discussion; we're going to have regular guillotines. We're fed up with dealing with amendments and with staying here after tea-time. We want to get home, get to the City or go to see our stockbrokers for advice, because if we don't, we get into difficulties—and at the same time, because we're going to extend delegated powers, we'll have a whole new look at the scrutiny." If they had said that, we could have formed a different judgment; we would have had to have an entirely different scale of values. But they did not say that, so I feel that I must oppose the motion—

Mr. Skinner: The first point that I want to make quickly is that Ministers do not see stockbrokers very often. That is a principle. Stockbrokers can just get rid of about £50,000 and not tell anybody about it until about 12 months later. I know that it sounds strange, but apparently that is the rule.
On the question of changing the system, is my hon. Friend putting forward the view—I should like to hear his views on this because people change their minds about legislation—that it would be better to guillotine Bills before they start on this merry road—or what?

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. What he said about stockbrokers worries me a little, because it suggests that the lack of communication between Ministers and stockbrokers is spreading to Parliament. What they want to do is to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a lot of rope this evening. I hope that he will not hang himself.

Mr. Cryer: I am certainly not going down that road, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply saying that cutting the debate and moving this business motion prevents a proper exchange of views—and that seems to be present elsewhere—between Ministers and stockbrokers. But I will not repeat that view any more, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see that it would not be a fruitful course of action.

Mr. Skinner: Why not guillotine stockbrokers?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asked about delegated legislation and about whether a Bill should be guillotined from the beginning. He suggested that the business motion might be linked to that sort of idea. We cannot change the rules in mid-stream. It would be exceedingly wrong, and a major and radical change for Parliament to undertake. We cannot do that at this stage, which is why, since we have an existing system of dealing with Bills—on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading, in the Lords and during our consideration of Lords amendments—we must maintain that system, but for it to work we must give legislation


adequate time on the Floor of the House. That is why it is an outrage for the Government to try to curtail matters in this way.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend and I have complained in the House about the manner in which the Bill is moving towards the statute book. Is my hon. Friend aware that we have had a Committee stage on Report, with large numbers of Government amendments, and then a further Committee stage during our consideration of Lords amendments? It is a crazy way to put legislation together. It is clear that Ministers do not know what they wanted to try to achieve, the Bill was so badly drafted.
As a consequence of this inefficient manner of dealing with legislation, there will be all sorts of problems in the future for local government. Therefore, we must insist that the Government carry on debating the Bill tonight, because we need to ensure as best we possibly can that what goes on to the statute book is at least explicable to those who will have to try to implement it in local government.

Mr. Cryer: I spoke earlier about the effect of shoddy legislation and measures passed in haste. Although we have spent many hours debating the Bill, it is now largely a different measure from that which we originally discussed. After all, 600 amendments tabled at this stage must result in ambiguities and difficulties.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Six hundred and fifty.

Mr. Cryer: The number is increasing all the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said at the outset this afternoon, the complexities of the Bill are such that we need more, not less, time to debate it. I fear that, because the Government are not making concessions and because the debate is being restricted, certain provisions in the measure will end up being tested in the courts. Consider the Private Eye libel case, in which the costs have been over £300,000—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that does not apply to the motion that is before the House.

Mr. Cryer: The fact that the debate is being curtailed will mean that the law will not be drafted as well as it might have been.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is making important points and we are listening to him with interest. Shall we be able to continue the debate once he resumes his seat? I fear that at that stage the Leader of the House will move the closure. Are we to he restricted even from debating the motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: Curtailing the debate will lead to confused legislation, and that will be bad legislation. I was giving an idea of the scale of costs that might be incurred in clarifying the Bill in court, and I mentioned by way of example the fact that in the Private Eye case the costs had amounted to nearly £350,000. Imagine how many houses a local authority could build for that money, or perhaps

£500,000 if the issue were taken to the House of Lords on appeal. On the other hand, one wonders how the lawyers have the nerve to ask for such huge sums.
When one hears some of the lawyers in this place, one wonders who on earth would pay them, at any price, for some of the comments that they make.

Mr. Skinner: A theory advanced by a few people is that, rather than have legislation go through in its normal slap-happy way and rather than finish up with lawyers making vast sums in court, there should be in an ideal situation a revising committee in the House. That committee would be made up of lawyers, and they would tidy up the legislation while working as Members of Parliament. They would be unable to work in the courts or make any money from the Yorkshire Ripper case or the Private Eye case. They would be slogging away in the House. They could start at 10 am, although if the House started earlier we could get them started at 8 am. That committee could deal with all the complicated legislation and possible Government amendments while we dealt with Question Time in front of the cameras.

Mr. Cryer: I must warn my hon. Friend that when he murmured about the abolition of fees and lawyers doing work without any remuneration, the Leader of the House woke up. Obviously that suggestion came as a great shock to him. We should proceed carefully on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was right to mention the courts, as the cost of going to court is not inconsiderable. As the Bill concerns local government and housing, it is clear that such costs will fall largely on local authorities. Those authorities are already badly strapped for cash. It is unfair that, as a result of the business motion, the potential implication is that local authorities will be forced to find large sums of money to finance actions to gain clarity on the Bill.
There is a great deal of argument over the proposed salary increase for hon. Members to be effective from January.

Mr. Skinner: No increase for ambulance crews.

Mr. Cryer: Indeed. Hon. Members are not badly paid; most of them get more than most of their constituents. If hon. Members are willing to stay here to examine legislation to try to make it clear and free from the festering examination of lawyers, we should stay here to do just that—that is what we are paid to do. The Government are denying us that opportunity by moving the closure.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is right to say that we should give these important matters detailed examination. I hope that he appreciates that we are talking about 152 pages of amendments. Some people outside might think that we are talking about the odd word or so and minor matters, but some of the amendments are several pages long. We need considerable time to discuss those matters in detail.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I shall deal first with the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for the Back Benches.
My hon. Friend for Burnley is right. No doubt the Government would argue outside that they moved the motion to curtail the debate because the amendments, although in their hundreds, were technical and minor.


Perhaps an amendment deletes "may" and inserts "shall", but such a change would represent a major change of policy father than a minor amendment. That argument would not wash with hon. Members.
My hon. Friend is also right to argue that some of those amendments do not simply delete one word and insert another, but are several pages long. The Government have put down a sufficient number of amendments to constitute a book full of amendments. Those amendments constitute a greater amount of wordage than in many Bills. The Government are denying us the right to discuss amendments in detail, but those amendments constitute more words than we see in many of the Bills put before us.
I cannot imagine a better illustration of the way in which the Government are trampling on the democratic rights of this House. They are trying to oppress us by denying us the opportunity to speak out. If the Government Chief Whip wants to intervene and tell us that the Government want to withdraw the business motion, I will be happy to give way. However, the Government are more intent on curtailing democratic rights than on entering into any spirit of understanding with a constructive Opposition.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend referred to the Government trampling on the democratic rights of Parliament. Does he believe that we could learn from what has happened in East Germany today, where I understand that the Cabinet has resigned and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though that may he, it does not relate to this business motion.

Mr. Home Robertson: With respect, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I found it very interesting, but he must relate his intervention to the motion before the House. If he can do that, I will hear him.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with the procedure before the House and the power of Parliament to control the actions of the Government. My interesting point is that in East Germany, apparently, the Parliament is to have an opportunity to elect the Cabinet. Would that not be useful in this country?

Mr. Cryer: That is a very interesting point. One of the reasons for Parliament is to give us an opportunity to control and scrutinise the Executive. When that opportunity is denied through the use of business motions of this kind, when the Opposition is run roughshod over because the Government have a majority of 100 or so, the message goes out to the people on the street that our democracy is crumbling. We have seen what can happen in those circumstances in other countries.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that we should have reached Lords amendment No. 266 and amendments (a) to (d) to that amendment tonight? That amendment deals with emergency planning, particularly in London. I was hoping to move some of those amendments, because we have no civil emergency planning in London. Surely that should concern this House from a personal as well as from a local, strategic point of view. Something disastrous might happen to the House of

Commons tonight, but there is no co-ordinated emergency planning in London. Is my hon. Friend aware that London is the only capital city in Europe that does not have a co-ordinated—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very convoluted intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a very skilled parliamentarian and I have no doubt that he can relate what he has to say to the motion before the House. Have another try—Mr. Tony Banks.

Mr. Banks: I have not had such a nice thing said about me since 1983. Madam Deputy Speaker. I love you dearly for what you have just said. I will treasure it in my heart for ever.
I was trying to explain that this motion will curtail a reasonable debate on a subject that is of prime importance to the capital city and therefore of some passing significance to the House. I want my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to take that into account as he opposes this motion.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is particularly distressing that the Government should try to curtail debate on such an important issue. As I have an interest in a London constituency and am concerned about it, I would have urged the Government to accept the amendment, because one of the great cities in western. Europe—indeed the greatest city—has no emergency planning—

Mr. Banks: In peacetime.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, the greatest city has no emergency planning in peacetime.

Mr. Winnick: It is appropriate that my hon. Friend should speak of the restrictions on parliamentary debate when it seems that the Leader of the House is going to restrict it even further by denying us the chance to debate this motion.
Does my hon. Friend consider it odd that the Prime Minister goes around boasting about the need for democracy and lecturing other countries on the subject while here at home there is no democracy in the Cabinet and there are severe restrictions on democracy in this place? When my hon. Friend sits down, the Leader of the House will try to stop us debating.

12 midnight

Mr. Cryer: That is a good point. I understand that the Government are going to try to move the closure.

Mr. Skinner: It is going to be a Cinderella job.

Mr. Cryer: I have heard that it will be done at 12—

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is to be the pumpkin.

Mr. Cryer: I hope that any attempt at a closure will be rejected. Many of my hon. Friends are anxious to join the debate.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made his interesting point, I was talking about emergency planning in peacetime, which is the sort of matter that Parliament should discuss. I have already said that the Opposition have been prepared to put forward constructive and helpful amendments, but I have not yet touched on policy. My hon. Friend the Member for


Newham, North-West could not have brought this important subject to the attention of the House in any other way. If I had not questioned this routine motion to adjourn further consideration, my hon. Friend would not have had the chance to point out that the Government are trying to deny us the right to debate emergency planning in the greatest city in the United Kingdom—a city of 14 million people.
I dare say there are more efficient and effective measures in Bradford than those available to the citizens of London. It is outrageous that this opportunity to discuss emergency planning in peacetime is being curtailed. It is interesting that, on the very day when, on one of his rare trips to the House, the Secretary of State for Transport spoke about a major railway disaster, this issue should have come up. Labour Members representing London boroughs would have dealt with the matter, but the chance to do so has been denied them—

Mr. Allen McKay: It was strange that the motion to adjourn consideration was moved when we were talking about aspects of rural areas. Coincidentally, the next group of amendments affect us all—they deal with the sale of old people's flats and bungalows without the possibility of their replacement—and that is serious.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises two important matters. There is a notion that the Labour party does not take a deep interest in rural areas, but this set of events gives the lie to that. The Government intervened to stop discussion of certain aspects of rural housing. We shall certainly get votes—

Mr. David Hunt: We are debating the motion that the debate be adjourned and I have not heard any arguments from the hon. Gentleman about why that motion should not be carried. There are 606 amendments before the House but 90 per cent. of them are technical and consequential. The amendments are in 22 groups of which we have managed to complete only two. It is clear that we have not made the progress that we had reasonably expected, and I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to accept the motion and let us adjourn.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Tim Renton): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Winnick: I spy strangers.

Mr. Tony Banks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second time on a point of order that I have found myself caught short when you have decided to take an interrupted motion. Do you not have any discretion at all in relation to an interrupted motion? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was making a number of valid points in which the whole House was interested. Every hon. Member was listening with great attention. I would have thought that discretion could have been exercised. I know that you do not need to explain, and I

am not asking you to explain, but could you tell me for the sake of the future whether you can exercise such discretion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the entire House that the Chair certainly has discretion in these matters.

Mr. Winnick: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I moved that I spy strangers. Were you not willing to accept that motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question had been put first. I must be honest with the hon. Gentleman: although he has a very good voice and I often hear him, on this occasion his voice was drowned by the voices of Conservative Members.

Mr. Pike: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether you have been given any indication by the Government that they intend to make a business statement following the Division? Alternatively, have they said when they intend to bring the business that we have been debating back to the Floor of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has not been told the Government's intentions in those matters.

The House having divided: Ayes 165, Noes 46.

Division No. 372]
[12.05 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amos, Alan
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hague, William


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irvine, Michael


Dover, Den
Jack, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Janman, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael






Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham



Rowe, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.


Sackville, Hon Tom



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas





NOES


Alton, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
McWilliam, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bradley, Keith
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George J.
Morgan, Rhodri


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Murphy, Paul


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
O'Brien, William


Clay, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Redmond, Martin


Cunningham, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Soley, Clive


Fearn, Ronald
Steinberg, Gerry


Flynn, Paul
Wallace, James


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Winnick, David


Haynes, Frank
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Home Robertson, John



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 47.

Division No. 373]
[12.16 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Amos, Alan
Ashby, David





Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knapman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boswell, Tim
Latham, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Lawrence, Ivan


Brazier, Julian
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Browne, John (Winchester)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butler, Chris
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
Maclean, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mans, Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carrington, Matthew
Maude, Hon Francis


Carttiss, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cash, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Mills, Iain


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Churchill, Mr
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Neale, Gerrard


Conway, Derek
Nicholls, Patrick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Cran, James
Paice, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Patnick, Irvine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Day, Stephen
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dover, Den
Portillo, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Renton, Tim


Durant, Tony
Riddick, Graham


Dykes, Hugh
Rowe, Andrew


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Ryder, Richard


Favell, Tony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shaw, David (Dover)


Forman, Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Franks, Cecil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Freeman, Roger
Speller, Tony


French, Douglas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Squire, Robin


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Stern, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Stevens, Lewis


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gorst, John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gregory, Conal
Summerson, Hugo


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Grist, Ian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thorne, Neil


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Thurnham, Peter


Harris, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hawkins, Christopher
Tracey, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Trippier, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Trotter, Neville


Hill, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hind, Kenneth
Walden, George


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Waller, Gary


Howard, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Watts, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wheeler, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wilkinson, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Jack, Michael



Janman, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Michael Fallon.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael



Key, Robert







NOES


Alton, David
Lewis, Terry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McWilliam, John


Beith, A. J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bermingham, Gerald
Meale, Alan


Bradley, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri


Buckley, George J.
Murphy, Paul


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
O'Brien, William


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Patchett, Terry


Clay, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cummings, John
Redmond, Martin


Cunningham, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Soley, Clive


Fearn, Ronald
Steinberg, Gerry


Flynn, Paul
Stott, Roger


Foster, Derek
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Illsley, Eric



Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order NO. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 151.

Division No. 374]
[12.27 am


AYES


Nil


Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. David Winnick.





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Alton, David
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Chope, Christopher


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Bob


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cryer, Bob





Cummings, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maclean, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mans, Keith


Day, Stephen
Maude, Hon Francis


Dorrell, Stephen
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Miller, Sir Hal


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fearn, Ronald
Moss, Malcolm


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Flynn, Paul
Neale, Gerrard


Forman, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patchett, Terry


Glyn, Dr Alan
Patnick, Irvine


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Goodlad, Alastair
Pike, Peter L.


Gorst, John
Portillo, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grist, Ian
Renton, Tim


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Harris, David
Salmond, Alex


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Haynes, Frank
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayward, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hind, Kenneth
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stern, Michael


Home Robertson, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Howard, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Summerson, Hugo


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thorne, Neil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Thurnham, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Jack, Michael
Trippier, David


Janman, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Waller, Gary


Key, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wheeler, John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Widdecombe, Ann


Latham, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wood, Timothy


Lewis, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lilley, Peter



Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mr. Michael Fallon and Mr. David Lightbown.


Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Question accordingly negatived.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about the rearranged business for tomorrow. It will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Timetable motion on the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill, followed by completion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill and consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill.
The rest of the week's business will be as already announced.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that his statement is totally unacceptable to the Opposition? I do not believe that the Leader of the House, who left his previous high office in a shambles after the Government reorganisation—[interruption] I do not mean that the right hon. and learned Gentleman left the Foreign Office in a shambles. I mean that the reorganisation of the Government was a shambles and that his removal from his previous office was a shambles, not his conduct of foreign affairs. Could he, however, have envisaged the business shambles for which he was about to become responsible?
The Bill has been before the House for 10 months—since February of this year. We are still considering it because the Government have tabled more than 600 amendments at this late stage in the proceedings. There has been no Opposition filibuster—neither in Committee nor in another place, where Opposition amendments were accepted by the Government. This state of affairs exists solely because Ministers have tabled more than 600 amendments and in effect are trying to enact a replay of the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already created a record during his short tenure of office as Leader of the House. In a few short weeks he has already had to move four guillotine motions. It is an unenviable record for him to have to defend. Not only is the Prime Minister's conduct of government demeaning government in Britain, but the conduct of the Government's business in this House is demeaning the reputation of Parliament.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Seldom can anyone have heard a more war-weary and less convincing presentation of a case than the one that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has just given. The Bill has been considered for a total of 210 hours. The amendments that were under consideration both yesterday and today were, as to 90 per cent. or more of them, technical and capable of very expeditious consideration. The crucial point is that yesterday 317 amendments were disposed of entirely as foreseen through the usual channels, whereas today, for some unexplained and unacceptable reason, there has been no comparable progress. In the face of that, it was absolutely right that the Government should take this step.

Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Leader of the House for giving notice that he proposed to make a business statement. As a distinguished lawyer, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have

considerable reservations about the fact that many of the amendments were introduced at a very late stage in the other place and were not sufficiently scrutinised through lack of time. They are now being scrutinised here without adequate time for debate. Does not the Leader of the House hanker after the days when the Conservative party believed in lightening the legislative load?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The central point is that well over 300 amendments were dealt with yesterday in perfectly good order. Had there been comparable progress today, there would have been no problem; but there has not been comparable progress today.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House considered the implications of his business statement on the discussion of Scottish business? There are important amendments to the Bill that affect Scotland and will receive inadequate consideration because of the guillotine motion. A further guillotine motion is poised over the Scottish education legislation next Monday. We are entitled to ask whether the Government are prepared to allow any discussion of Scottish business in this Chamber.
Has not the Leader of the House something of a brass neck to come to the House and announce the curtailment of the discussion of Scottish business when there is not one Scottish Conservative Member in the Chamber to hear him—[interruption]—with the sole exception of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—and occasionally we are not quite sure whether he is with us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has some difficulty in espying my hon. Friend at this time of night, but he is here, alert and watchful as ever. The Government will ensure that the interests of Scotland arc well and effectively looked after.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Instead of introducing the guillotine motion tomorrow, would it not be a better idea for the Leader of the House to call upon the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement about the ambulance crews and the introduction of the Army—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I do not see how this relates to the statement by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Skinner: Whenever a business statement is made, it is right and proper for hon. Members on either side to call for other statements instead of the statement that he has made. That is the practice in the House.
The Leader of the House should call upon the Secretary of State for Health to make a further statement about the ambulance crews and the Army being brought in, in view of the continuing controversy. It has now been revealed that the negotiations on the trade union side—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters do not arise out of the statement.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Leader of the House accept that since he has been Leader of the House he has made more business statements after


midnight than before midnight? Does he further accept that we condemn such trampling on parliamentary rights? Will he ensure that tomorrow the Secretary of State for Education and Science makes a statement to the House on capital expenditure on schools which is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman just heard me say that questions must be related to the statement and not to other matters.

Mr. Cryer: It is related. Before this change of business is implemented tomorrow, I want a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Children in my constituency of Bradford, South are being sent home because of the lousy Tory council in Bradford not spending enough money on schools. The children in my constituency deserve better than that from this rotten Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even the hon. Gentleman is surely subject to the rule of courtesy that I want does not get.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that if there are to be restrictions on debate when there is no question of filibustering—[Interruption.] The Conservative Members who are shouting were not present during the debate. Is the Leader of the House aware that if such restriction of parliamentary rights and privileges continues Back Benchers will fight it with every conceivable parliamentary device to ensure that our voices are heard? After the Leader of the House announced the procedural motion tonight was one illustration of that.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman reflects upon the swift progress that was made yesterday and the non-progress that was made tonight, he will see that there is no foundation for his threat.

Mr. Tony Banks: Before I ask a question of the Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you say whether Conservative Members' claim that there has been a filibuster—if that is their accusation—is a criticism of whoever was in the Chair at the time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will judge whether any speeches or statements in the House are in or out of order.

Mr. Banks: I remind the Leader of the House that, when I congratulated him on becoming Leader of the House, I said that in his new position he would find life far more convivial than he did when travelling around the world with the Prime Minister, being feted and drinking gin and tonics. He sees exactly how interesting the times in which he lives are when he proposes guillotine motions.
I advise the Leader of the House that 650 amendments are far too many for hon. Members seriously to consider in the constricted timespan that he is now to give us. Why could not hon. Members be allowed to continue discussing the amendments in a measured way through the night and into the next day? We are quite prepared to do so. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman afraid of? Can he not muster his troops to put forward a reasonable argument on the Government's amendments?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that our troops are mustered and ready to uphold the Government in all these matters. There is no realistic prospect of measured consideration of the kind that the hon. Gentleman talks about. There was measured, sensible consideration on the previous day. There has not been any this evening.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Leader of the House aware that I have now completely lost faith in him? Last Thursday, I suggested that he should watch the Government Chief Whip. He has now joined in the right hon. Gentleman's activities. Is it any wonder that the opinion polls are in our favour? People can see the mess that the Government are in. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should go to No. 10 tomorrow and resign.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House will want to reflect upon the hon. Gentleman's gentle ruminations, but the Government will continue to prevail upon the support of the people of this country.

Mr. Bob Clay: Will the Leader of the House explain how on earth the House will be able to give adequate attention to Lords amendment No. 277 to the Local Government and Housing Bill, which deals with housing action trusts?
The Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), went to Sunderland on Monday to discuss housing action trusts, and then issued a press release which appears to claim that he has caved in to a Labour council on that matter. Other local authorities threatened with housing action trusts will want to know what the amendment is about, what its implications are for them, and exactly what deal the Minister has struck with my local authority. How are hon. Members to debate that matter in the pathetic amount of time that the Government have allocated, if that amendment is ever reached?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: A great deal of time could have been devoted to it tonight had there not been so much time spent on dilatory matters. As it is, we shall have to see how much time is available tomorrow.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: As the Leader of the House is not prepared to go along with any other suggestions, and as he referred more than once to Monday's proceedings, saying that he was happy with the progress that was made, will he guarantee that he will provide similar time tomorrow as was available on Monday so that all the issues may be debated?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will have to recognise that it is a question to which a large amount of time has been devoted today, including the extended discussions that we are having at this late hour. One must take full account of that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why is the Employment Bill being caught up in this procedural mess? It is a hideous Bill, but in terms of procedure, it went readily through Committee, readily through the Lords and readily through the rest of its proceedings in this House. There have been no previous problems with it, but it is now being curtailed because of the procedures affecting other measures. We are not being given a proper chance to look at the Lords amendments to the Employment Bill.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It has not been caught up in any kind of procedural mess whatsoever. It is important—and recognised by hon. Members of all parties to be important—that we should try to preserve the rest of this week's business, including the debate fixed for Thursday on parliamentary pensions. I am anxious to achieve that, as well as this.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Leader of the House has started 8 November with an unscheduled statement to the House. He has announced that the House is to have a substantial additional workload during the coming day, or tomorrow, or whatever it is. Does he anticipate that either he or any other Minister will want to make any other statements on any other difficulties that the Government may stumble into during the next 12 hours or so in tomorrow's business, or today's business, or whatever it is?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let us see how we get on with tomorrow's business when it comes.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Leader of the House has made several suggestions about a filibuster tonight and has referred to yesterday's business and to today's business. I suggest two things. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not looked at what yesterday's business was and why it went through. The contentious items were, in fact, on today's business. Secondly, I refer to the fact that yesterday, through the usual channels, the voting pattern was decided, yet there have not been any consultations through the usual channels today on that. If there had been, we could have told the Leader of the House when we would vote.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should know that there has been consultation through the usual channels and that the original layout of business in the two days provided was in accordance with matters discussed through the usual channels, and it is that which has not been fulfilled.

PETITION

TUITION FEES AND LOANS

Mr. David Alton: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Robert Bertram, the president of the University of Liverpool Guild of Undergraduates, other officers of the union and 1,562 petitioners who are students in Liverpool.
I share the concern and determined opposition of my constituents to the introduction of the student loan system. The petitioners believe that such a system would deter many young people from seeking higher education and believe that loans would be a millstone round their necks. They further believe that it would be a regressive measure, and educationally and socially damaging.
The petition
sheweth that any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees and student loans, whether partially or fully, will further limit access to higher education.
Wherefor your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do reject any proposals to introduce the payment by students of tuition fees or student loans.

To lie upon the Table.

Beef

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House at this hour to help me, I hope, with a vexed problem that has been giving me great cause for concern since I established the nature of the practice some time ago.
I refer to the question of the pre-slaughter tenderising of beef. My hon. Friend will be aware of the process, involving the use of chemically modified papains for the pre-slaughter tenderising of beef. He will also be aware of the decision by his predecessor in office not to accept the recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council that the practice should be banned on ethical and welfare grounds. He may also be aware of the defence of that decision by his fellow Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in the BBC's "The Food Programme" recently.
In a letter to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon referred to research carried out in the light of a Farm Animal Welfare Council report designed to find out whether animals suffered pain after injection, especially if there was to be a delay before stunning and slaughter. I presume that he was referring to a paper published in Meat Science in 1987 entitled "Clinical biochemistry and pathology of mature beef cattle following ante-mortem intravenous administration of a commercial papain preparation." Since neither I nor the House of Commons Library could find any other work that has been done, I presume that that was the work to which reference was made.
For a number of reasons, I am far from happy with that paper. One of the authors who participated in the work was an employee of the firm promoting the practice involved, so he would have a distinct interest in the result. The maximum duration of observation—it related to just one beast out of the 10 involved—was 315 seconds between the administration of the papain and the time of slaughter, when the manufacturer's recommendation is for slaughter to take place at between two and 20 minutes. What then, I thought, of the period of between five and 20 minutes, or even longer? In the discussion section of that paper, the observation was made:
However, for this study we are unable to predict the outcome if a period longer than 315 seconds elapsed between treatment and slaughter.
The fact that that aspect has not been addressed is a travesty in the light of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement:
We were also told that if, for any reason, a treated animal could not be put through the slaughter line, it would be placed back in the lairage under observation and slaughtered the following day without being reinjected.
Lines break down, and slaughter in six minutes cannot be guaranteed even in the best run establishments.
My next objection is that the work on rats and sheep to which reference was made in the paper is surely relevant in the light of the potential delay problem to which I have referred. It is clear that there is an effect on the metabolism of animals, even though the enzyme may be rapidly excreted through the kidneys. I am advised by Professor Webster of the animal husbandry unit at Bristol that the effect on the liver would be akin to having a bad hangover

and would leave any animal, as it does a human being, feeling very depressed. It seems that the beef animal that has been injected and is feeling thoroughly depressed is shoved out into the lairage with a heavy hangover, only to be knocked off the next day. I cannot see any humanitarian or welfare considerations in that. In fact, it could be positively cruel.
The handling of the animals prior to injection is given only peremptory attention in the paper to which I have referred. My veterinary friends tell me that one of the big pluses to flow from the EEC licensing of abattoirs is that the vets are able to exercise supervision over the welfare interests of the animals. They point out that knuckles must be rapped from time to time and that slaughtermen must be brought up short and told the errors of their ways if they get sloppy or take short cuts with procedure. In such an exercise, with a formal demonstration, as we had when the Farm Animal Welfare Council witnessed the procedure in this case, the demonstration of the techniques involved would be carefully managed. I imagine that great care would be taken to ensure that everything was right. After all, the promoters had a lot at stake.
The paper talks about "a well organised abattoir," but I have not been able to find any reference to any criterion in the use of papains which says that it must be done in a well organised abattoir. When the pressure is on for throughput, will the animals be so carefully handled? I have strong reservations, especially in the light of the observations of those vets who have had to witness that process. They are of one mind—they do not like what they have to witness.
The size of the sample was also extremely small. A mere 10 beef animals with nine as controls is not a firm foundation for the conclusions drawn from that particular research, or alleged research, paper. Given that it represents the only research around, it may comprise the best scientific advice, but I was frankly surprised to find such a superficial paper being taken so seriously against the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which stated clearly that the practice should be banned on ethical and welfare grounds.
A constituent farmer arrived at a slaughterhouse to find that the gates which were normally open were locked. Shortly after his arrival he described how he heard the dreadful sounds of cattle "screaming". It was the abnormal noise of acute pain. While he was listening to that, another visitor to the abattoir—also a farmer—appeared from within the complex. My constituent asked what on earth was going on and the other farmer told him that the cattle were being injected with a tenderising substance, adding that he had been told to keep quiet or the slaughter men would not accept his stock. I find that particularly bothering. What kind of practice is this which leads to furtiveness, operations behind closed doors and blackmail? It cannot be healthy.
On "The Food Programme" my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary compared the experience of the cattle to that of humans giving blood at a donor session. From time to time I have given blood and I must confess that I do not find it a particularly comfortable experience. However, I am not in an unknown and hostile environment, nor am I physically restrained in a crush. My head is not yanked to one side to expose my jugular for the best part of a pint of fluid to be pumped in. Above all I know what is happening. The poor beast in the abattoir does not know what is happening. In welfare terms the


slaughter process, to have any dignity, must be quiet, orderly and stress free. I cannot see how those requirements can be complied with under the present practice. I cannot see how the welfare of the animal is enhanced in any way as the whole process is palpably not to its benefit. There is nothing therapeutic about it—the practice is purely for the benefit of the trade.
I hope that my hon. Friend will carefully review the welfare aspect of this unnatural practice and that he will take wider advice. I am sure that that action would lead to his wishing to withdraw Ministry approval. When my hon. Friend reconsiders the matter he should also take into account the future dimension—the single European market. We are approaching 1992 and from what I have been able to find out it is clear that, for a variety of reasons, other member states are not all of an easy mind about the practice. By 1992 commonality must exist in the meat trade if there is to be free trade in carcase meat. It would be most helpful to know the Government's thinking in that respect.
In the meantime, what should we do? I believe that consumers show a considerable interest in the food processes involved in the provision of staples and I consider beef to be a staple. The consumer should be able to make an informed choice. In his capacity as Minister responsible for food, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would go along with that.
The 1980 food labelling regulations call for such meat to be labelled as tenderised, but that description does not differentiate between post-mortem tenderising such as pounding, partial chopping or electrical techniques and ante-mortem tenderising such as the method of which I am complaining. As fas as the consumer is concerned, cooking times and storage techniques are different. Get those wrong and the meat might disintegrate in cooking, and if the meat is not stored properly there may be problems with food poisoning. It is essential that the product be properly identified at all times.
Such meat should be described for trading purposes as
Pre-slaughter enzymic treatment tenderised meat.
I know that that is a mouthful, but it must be clear that the treatment is pre-slaughter and involves a chemical. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an undertaking tonight to amend the food regulations accordingly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give strong advice to trading standards officers so that traders offering the product for sale over the counter in the high streets know what it is all about. When I asked someone what the expression "tenderised meat" meant, I was told, "Oh yes, sir, it is more natural like—been kept in the open and fed lots of barley." What greater travesty of the truth could there be?
The claim is that the proportion of joints that can be grilled or roasted increases from 35 per cent. in an untreated carcase to 75 per cent. after treatment. The economic advantage moves to the meat trade as the market demand is for the hind-quarter cuts. The logic of the argument is that fewer beef animals would be required for the prime beef market if the practice became more widespread. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that my part of the world rears darned fine beef. A practice might grow up of trying to upgrade cow beef and passing it off as prime beef. At the time when the beef industry—both the suckler cow herds and dairy herds—is under pressure,

it seems crazy to espouse a practice which is highly dubious in welfare terms and has no economic benefits for primary producers.
I hope that I have said enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the Government's position, to commission more searching research from independent sources and to amend the food labelling regulations and give that vital advice to trading standards officers to make certain that proper standards are maintained in this respect. I am revolted by what is happening in the trade now, and I believe that I am not alone in my revulsion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on securing the debate and on choosing this subject. I know of my hon. Friend's long attachment to animal welfare. I believe that he is still an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. That is a great honour and privilege which I was able to share for a short while.
Like my hon. Friend, the Government attach great importance to securing the proper welfare of animals at slaughter and at all other stages of their lives. If we are to have meat to eat, animals must be slaughtered, and in large numbers, but we are determined to ensure that that is performed as humanely as possible. There is already extensive legislation governing the welfare of animals at slaughter. This provides substantial safeguards. Nevertheless, procedures and techniques have changed since detailed rules were introduced in the 1950s, and we propose shortly to introduce new regulations on the welfare of animals at slaughter which, in giving effect to recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, will strengthen and improve the protection now afforded by the law.
I understand why anyone who has the welfare of animals at heart should view with concern a process for administering before slaughter an enzyme solution to tenderise the meat from the animal. Indeed, the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that such treatments before slaughter should be banned. The Government do not reject lightly any recommendation by the council, which they appointed as an independent body to advise them on matters relating to the welfare of farm animals. The decision to do so in this case was not an easy one, but those who wish to use this process have a right to expect that it should not be condemned on suspicion alone but that it should be evaluated objectively and scientifically. That is what the Government have done, and very carefully. I therefore welcome this opportunity to explain to the House and to my hon. Friend the detailed consideration which the Government have given to this process. In doing so, I hope to reassure the House that some of the concerns which have been expressed about it by my hon. Friend are unnecessary and also, perhaps, to clear up some of the misconceptions which are held about the treatment.
The foremost consideration for the Government when considering any process or treatment relating to the food we eat must be the safety of the consumer. That is paramount. The enzyme administered to the animals is papain, a natural vegetable enzyme derived from the paw paw fruit, which is commonly consumed by humans. It has


a long history of medicinal use for the treatment of chronic dyspepsia and gastritis among other things, and it is used in the production of beer. It has been carefully evaluated for safety in use by the Department of Health's committee on toxicity, as well as by international scientific bodies, which have approved it for use in food. When used as in the tenderising treatment, papain is present in the meat before it is cooked at a level of less than five parts per million. Cooking first activates the enzyme so that it tenderises the meat and, as the temperature rises, it then largely destroys the enzyme. I can assure the House that its use in this process for tenderising meat presents no risk whatever to public health.
Before I deal with the welfare concerns surrounding this treatment, it may be helpful if I explain the process. It involves the intravenous administration of a solution containing oxidised papain into prime beef animals immediately before stunning and slaughter. The amount administered is generally about 250 to 300 ml, but this is varied according to the size and weight of the animal. The solution is introduced into the vascular system in accordance with accepted veterinary practice and it is circulated throughout the animal's body by the blood stream. The solution remains inactive and has no effect upon the live animal. It remains in the meat until it is cooked, when it is activated by the heat and acts to accelerate the breakdown of the protein molecules in the meat, making it tender.
The process was developed in the United States and has been used in this country since the early 1960s. The company holding the patent rights to the process in the United Kingdom uses it in its own plants and also licenses other operators. Unlike in the United States, however, use of the process in this country is not widespread and I understand that only about 2 per cent. of the total number of cattle slaughtered each year are thus treated.
One common misunderstanding is the belief that the treatment is used to improve what would otherwise be tough or poor quality meat. That is not so. In fact, its application is confined to prime young animals—to steers less than three years old and heifers up to two years old. The treatment is said to increase the recovery of meat which can be grilled or roasted from 35 per cent. in an untreated carcase to 75 per cent. in a treated one. Although other methods of tenderising meat are available, this process is particularly effective and achieves a uniform distribution throughout the meat of a relatively small quantity of the enzyme.
I shall now turn to the welfare aspects which were the main concern of my hon. Friend. I understand well the concerns that the process raises. The Farm Animal Welfare Council and other welfare interests expressed concern that the enzyme might begin to operate on the tissues of the animal while it is still alive. The council was concerned that there was a real risk that this might cause suffering, especially if slaughter is delayed for any reason. In practice, the time between administration and slaughter is generally no more than about five minutes. Nevertheless, the concern that the animal's tissues and organs might be affected by the enzyme is easy to understand. In order to test this, the Ministry carried out research which established that there is no evidence that deterioration of

tissue occurs during the few minutes before animals are usually slaughtered. If slaughter should be delayed for any reason the fluid is excreted.
Officers of the state veterinary service who participated in the study concluded—and I accept their evidence and judgment—that there was no evidence that animals suffer any pain as a result of the presence of the enzyme in their bodies, and that if the recommended procedures are followed no welfare problems should arise. The results were published in Meat Science in 1987 and, as my hon. Friend said, a copy has been placed in the Library in case any hon. Member should wish to examine it as closely as my hon. Friend has done.
My hon. Friend spoke about some of the bad practice that he has encountered or has evidence of in abattoirs. I am aware that there have been a number of reports and articles in the press criticising welfare standards in slaughterhouses. Obviously, the treatment of an animal is open to abuse at any stage of its life. As I have already explained, there is extensive legislation designed to safeguard the welfare of farm animals at slaughter. That gives local authorities responsible for enforcing the legislation sufficient powers to ensure that standards are maintained and enables them to take any action if they consider that an animal has been mistreated.
The press articles made various claims about poor welfare which we took very seriously. However, in spite of extensive inquiries none of the claims has been substantiated. Perhaps I could assure the House that it is the view of my veterinary advisers who visit slaughterhouses that conditions are generally satisfactory and they do not witness the conditions that I have seen described rather vividly in press articles.
Another welfare concern has been that some animals suffer adverse reactions to the enzyme. I am aware, for example, of reports, about this, such as one in the Veterinary Record of 5 January 1985. Although we know that such reactions have occurred, confirmed cases are known to be extremely rare. The risk has now been reduced virtually to zero by refinements to the process. The company holding the patent rights maintains a record of such cases and I am pleased to be able to say that none has been reported in recent years.
Perhaps the main welfare concern, however, is the view expressed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and by other welfare interests that, while it may not cause pain, the process represents an additional interference with or indignity to the animal at what is already a stressful time, and that this interference is not in the interests of the animal. I respect that view and, as I said earlier, I take very seriously the concerns of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. That is why ministerial colleagues in the past and my veterinary officers have seen the process being carried out. It is performed by trained operatives who handle the animals carefully. The administration of the solution causes little discomfort and there is no evidence that the animals suffer undue stress. There is, of course, some added interference with the animal immediately before it is slaughtered which welfare interests find objectionable. However, the Government do not believe that the treatment can be considered inhumane and on balance we do not feel that we would be justified in banning the use of a process that is otherwise perfectly safe.
I hope that what I have said will show that we have given very careful attention to the concerns that have been expressed about this treatment. We have not found it to be


inhumane and, on the evidence available, we still believe that we would not be justified in prohibiting it on welfare grounds. So long as the process is employed, I shall continue to keep the welfare aspects under review and will look carefully at any relevant new information which may become available.
There is, however, another dimension to this matter, which my hon. Friend touched on, and which is very important. It concerns the rules of the European Community for trade in meat between member states. The present Community legislation does not apply to the production of enzyme-treated meat within member states for supply to their own domestic markets, but it does not generally permit trade in such meat between member states. At present, however, they may enter into bilateral agreements for trade in treated meat and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have such an arrangement. Other member states do not employ the papain process and have never favoured its use, although for reasons which have never been really clear to us.
I understand that Commission officials are even now preparing draft proposals for the production and marketing of meat under single market conditions, and are proposing that the marketing of enzyme treated meat should not be permitted. The Commission has not yet made a formal proposal to this effect but we expect it to do so and that it will have the support of the majority of our European partners. The adoption of such a rule would prevent the use of the pre-slaughter enzyme treatment. The question arises, therefore, as to whether the Government should seek in negotiations to obtain special arrangements

which would permit the treatment to continue. We are anxious that the common rules for meat should be agreed and applied as soon as possible as this will be in the best interests of our consumers and of our industry at large.
I do not expect that it will be easy to reach agreement in Brussels speedily, but it would not be to our advantage to delay matters by making an issue of a process of which only limited use is being made and which may also be open to some criticism on animal welfare grounds. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom is at the forefront in pressing for higher welfare standards throughout the Community. We are seeking to improve welfare standards for pigs kept in intensive farming systems and to get the veal crate ban, which will apply here from 1 January next year, adopted on a Community basis. For battery hens, we shall be urging improvements in welfare when the Community provisions are reviewed. It will not assist our case in pressing other member states to improve animal welfare standards if we leave open any possibility, however remote, of being accused of not practising what we preach.
I have to say now, therefore, that for these reasons we have decided not to seek provision for the continuation of the pre-slaughter enzyme treatment under the single market rules. In these circumstances, those now using the process—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.